You are here

Archived: Human Support Group Limited - Wolverhampton Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 February 2018

This inspection took place on 09 November 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because the service provides domiciliary care to people living in their own homes and we wanted to make sure staff would be available. At the last inspection on 04 November 2015 at a previously registered address, we found the provider needed to make improvements in relation to the amount of time given to staff to provide support and the way in which complaints were handled. At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made in these areas, however further improvements were required.

Human Support Group Limited - Wolverhampton is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults, most of whom are aged 65 and over. Not everyone using Human Support Group Limited – Wolverhampton receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service supported 87 people ranging in age, gender, ethnicity and disability.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People did not always receive care and support at the times agreed and some people experienced inconsistencies with staffing which meant they were dissatisfied with the service. People felt safe while being supported by staff and staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from abuse. Risks were assessed and managed to ensure people were kept safe. People received their medicines as prescribed and staff were trained to administer these safely. People were protected from the risk of infection by staff who followed national guidance about infection control. The provider was open and honest when investigating concerns and had developed action plans when areas of improvement had been identified.

Information about people’s capacity to make specific decisions had not always been recorded, although staff were trained to ensure people were asked for their consent before care was provided. People’s needs and choices were assessed and recorded prior to them receiving care and support. Staff received training and supervision to ensure they were competent to deliver effective and compassion care. Staff worked effectively with other relevant agencies to ensure people’s needs were met.

People received support from staff who were caring and kind. People felt that their regular staff knew them well and understood their needs. People were supported to make decisions about their day to day care and support. Where people had specific culturally or religious needs these were identified and supported by staff. People were supported to maintain their independence where possible and staff were described as respectful.

People received care and support that was planned in a personalised way to meet their individual needs. Any changes to people’s needs were communicated with staff who provided support and recorded in people’s care records. People were confident to raise concerns if they were unhappy about the service their received and there was a system in place to manage and respond to complaints.

The provider had failed to address some of the concerns identified at the last inspection. Improvements were required to the quality assurance systems to ensure people received a high quality service. People, relatives and staff had been aske

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was not always safe.

People did not always receive support at the time they needed it from staff who knew them well.

People felt safe while receiving support and staff knew how to identify signs of possible abuse and report any concerns.

People received their medicines as prescribed and staff were trained to ensure people�s medicines were administered safely.

People were protected from the risk of infection by staff who followed infection control policies and procedures.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was not always effective.

People�s capacity to make specific decisions had not always been recorded and improvements were required to ensure staff had information available to support people to make their own decisions where possible.

People�s care was assessed and planned in order to meet their individual needs.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals when required and the staff team worked with other agencies to ensure people�s needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were described as friendly and respectful.

Staff supported people to make decisions about their day to day care and support.

People were supported to maintain their independence where possible and staff supported people in a dignified way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care that was personalised and designed to meet their individual needs.

Where people�s needs changed this was recorded and information shared with staff to ensure people received up to date care and support.

Improvements had been made to the complaints system and people knew how to raise concerns about the service they received. Complaints were investigated and outcomes of any investigations were provided to the complainant.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Concerns identified at the last inspection relating to the lateness of people�s calls had not been addressed.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided however improvements were required to ensure these were effective in identifying areas for improvement.

Most people felt they received a good service.

People, relatives and staff were given an opportunity to share their views on the service.

The service worked effectively in partnership with other agencies to ensure people�s care and support needs were met.