YESUK Office

Updated 10 February 2024

The inspection

We carried out this performance review and assessment under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act). We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements of the regulations associated with the Act and looked at the quality of the service to provide a rating.

Unlike our standard approach to assessing performance, we did not physically visit the office of the location. This is a new approach we have introduced to reviewing and assessing performance of some care at home providers. Instead of visiting the office location we use technology such as electronic file sharing and video or phone calls to engage with people using the service and staff.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by 1 inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was announced.

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the service is small, and we needed to be sure the provider or registered manager would be available to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 5 December 2023 and ended on 12 December 2023.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We gained feedback from 2 relatives of the person who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 3 members of staff including the registered manager and care workers. We received feedback from 2 staff via email. We reviewed a range of records. This included 1 person’s care plan and medication record. We looked at 2 staff files in relation to recruitment and a variety of records relating to the management of the service.

This performance review and assessment was carried out without a visit to the location’s office. We used technology such as video calls to enable us to engage with the person’s relative and staff, and electronic file sharing to enable us to review documentation.

Updated 10 February 2024

About the service

YES UK Office is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there was 2 people using the service.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, 1 person was supported with the regulated activity of personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider’s processes to monitor the safety and quality of the service were not effective.

The person’s record did not contain all the information staff needed to provide safe care and there was a risk there may not always be enough staff at night. The registered manager had not ensured staff were always recruited safely. Staff reported incidents and the service’s infection control measures were effective.

The person was not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their life and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

The registered manager had not ensured all staff received training and competency assessments. Staff were not trained in end-of-life care and there was no information about the person’s wishes in their records. The service worked with other professionals; there was limited documentation of their input.

The person’s relatives were happy with the care provided. Staff promoted the person’s independence. The person was supported with activities of interest to them, and staff involved them with aspects of daily living. The person’s care plan included details of their communication needs.

The person’s relatives spoke positively about the leadership of the service and the care people received from staff. They felt comfortable raising concerns. Staff felt supported by their manager and colleagues.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 5 December 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We have identified breaches in relation to risk assessment, consent and governance and made recommendations related to recruitment and end of life care.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

This was an ‘inspection using remote technology’. This means we did not visit the office location and instead used technology such as electronic file sharing to gather information, and video and phone calls to engage with people using the service as part of this performance review and assessment.