YESUK Office

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.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We spoke with one relative who told us that their family member was kept safe and was well cared and was supported by staff who were both competent and well trained. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from potential abuse and knew how to identify the risks associated with abuse.

The provider operated a thorough recruitment processes which helped to ensure that staff employed to provide care and support were fit to do so.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet individual needs and the service provided was flexible.

The person who used the service and their relative were both very complimentary about the abilities and experience of the staff who provided their care and support.

Staff supported the person to stay safe in their home, and was supported to maintain their health and well- being. Staff developed appropriate positive and caring relationships with the person they supported and their family, and feedback from the person who used the service was consistently positive and complimentary.

Staff asked for the person’s consent before providing care and support. The person who used the service and their relative, where appropriate were involved in the initial planning of the care and support they received. The person’s personal information was stored securely and confidentiality was maintained.

The person who used the service and their relative told us they felt the staff provided care and support that was delivered in a way that promoted their dignity and respected their privacy. Staff were knowledgeable about the person’s preferred routines and delivered care that was individualised.

We were told that staff listened to them and responded to them in a positive way. The relative knew how to raise concerns if they needed to and told us they were confident that the registered manager would take appropriate action to address any concerns in a timely way.

The registered manager had arrangements in place to receive feedback from people who used the service, their relative, external stakeholders and staff members about the services provided. There was an effective system in place for people to raise complaints about the service they received.

We found that records were sufficiently maintained and the systems in place to monitor the quality of services provided were effective.