Background to this inspection
Updated
11 May 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place between 16 and 26 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the service short notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
One inspector carried out the inspection.
Prior to the inspection we contacted external commissioners of the service from the local authority and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), as well as the local authority safeguarding team and the local Healthwatch. We used their feedback during the planning of this inspection.
During our inspection we spoke with 12 people and seven relatives either face to face or by telephone. We spoke with a range of staff including the registered manager, two care co-ordinators, four care workers and the administrator. We reviewed a range of records including five people’s care records, medicine records, five staff files, training records and other records relating to the quality and safety of the service.
Updated
11 May 2018
This inspection took place between 16 and 26 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice to ensure someone would be available to speak with us and show us records.
When we last inspected the service we found the provider had breached the regulations relating to safe care and treatment because potential risks to people’s safety were not managed safely. We rated the service as Requires Improvement. Following this inspection, to reflect the improvements the provider has made, we have rated the service as Good.
Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question(s) is the service safe, responsive and well-led to at least good. We found progress had been made and the provider was now meeting the regulations. In particular, there was now a more robust risk management process in place to help keep people safe from harm.
Synergy Homecare – Washington is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection it provided a service to approximately 130 people.
The service had a registered manager. 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, relatives and staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. They told us since the registered manager had started there had been significant improvements made to the service.
The provider did not always maintain accurate records for the medicines people had been given. We found gaps in signatures on medicines administration records (MARs). A similar trend had already been identified through the provider’s own quality assurance checks and action was underway to remedy this.
People and relatives told us the service provided a good level of care. They also said staff were kind, considerate and caring. People, staff and relatives felt the service was safe.
A reliable and consistent staff team provided people’s care. People told us staff usually turned up on time. Some people said they did not always know which staff were due and at what time. The provider had set up individual arrangements with people to improve this.
The provider had effective processes so that new staff were recruited safely.
Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and the whistleblowing procedure. They told us they did not have any concerns about people’s safety but knew how to raise them if they needed to.
Staff felt the support they received had improved. They confirmed they had regular opportunities to speak with management. They told us training had also improved.
Staff supported people to meet their nutritional and healthcare needs. People told us staff supported them to have enough to eat and drink.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s care plans had improved since the last inspection. They were now more personalised and included detailed guidance for staff to follow about how people wanted their care provided.
People knew how to complain if required. There had been no complaints made about the service since our last inspection.