We carried out a review of the data available to us about Regus on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Regus, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Risks to people had been assessed and staff had guidance to follow on how to manage identified risks safely. There were sufficient staff deployed by the service to meet people’s needs. The provider followed safe recruitment practices. Staff were aware of the action to take to reduce the risk of infection. People’s medicines were safely managed. Staff were aware to report any incidents or accidents which occurred. The registered manager reviewed incident and accident information for learning, to reduce the risk of repeat occurrence.
People’s needs were assessed when they started using the service. They were involved in the planning of their care and their care plans identified their individual needs and preferences. Staff were supported in their roles through training, supervision and an annual appraisal of their performance. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and had access to a range of healthcare services when needed. Staff worked with other agencies to ensure people receive effective support. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the action to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. Staff treated people with care and kindness. They respected people’s privacy and treated them with dignity. People were involved in decisions about the support they received.
The provider had a complaints procedure in place and people expressed confidence that any issues they raised would be dealt with appropriately. Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager and told us they worked well as a team. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the responsibilities of their role. The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality and safety of the service. They also sought people’s views on the running of the service in order to help identify potential areas for improvement.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection (and update)
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 9 November 2018) at which we identified three breaches of regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At our last inspection in August 2017 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements in order to keep people safe because risks to people had not always been adequately assessed. This action had not been completed. Identified risks to people had not always been assessed and people’s care plans did not always contain sufficient information for staff on how to manage identified risks safely. This amounted to a continued breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
At our last inspection in August 2017 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements in order to keep people safe because the provider’s systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service were not effective in identifying issues or driving improvements, and records at the service contained inaccurate information. This action had not been completed. Whilst improvements had been made to address the recording issues we had previously identified, the provider’s systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service remained ineffective. This amounted to a continued breach of regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
At our last inspection in August 2017 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to ensure they followed safe practice when recruiting new staff. This action has been completed. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.
At this inspection we found the provider’s induction and training programme was not robust and the registered manager was not always able to demonstrate that staff had received training in the areas considered mandatory by the provider. This was a breach of regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
At our last inspection in August 2017 we found improvement was required to ensure people’s medicines were consistently managed safely. At this inspection we found the administration of people’s medicines had not always been accurately recorded and there was no guidance in place for staff on the support they should give to people who had been prescribed medicines to be taken ‘as required’. This was a breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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.
At this inspection we found improvement was required to ensure that the registered manager was aware of the responsibilities of their role and had a better understanding of the legal requirements associated with the provision of domiciliary care. We also found further areas requiring improvement because people’s needs had not always been holistically assessed when they started using the service, and to ensure that people received effective, joined up care when supported by different services. We have made a recommendation about carrying out assessments.
People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the provider’s procedures for reporting abuse allegations. The service deployed sufficient staff to safely meet people’s needs. Staff worked in ways which reduced the risk of the spread of infection. Staff also knew to report any accidents and incidents, and the registered manager reviewed accident and incident records to ensure appropriate action had been taken to maintain people’s safety.
People received support from staff to maintain a balanced diet, where needed. They had access to a range of healthcare services in order to maintain good health. Staff were supported in their roles through regular supervision and an annual appraisal of their performance. Staff sought people's consent when offering them support. 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.
Staff treated people with care and compassion. People were involved in decisions about their support. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. People received care which reflected their individual needs and preferences. They had been involved in the planning of their care. The provider gave people a copy of their complaints procedure when they started using the service. People knew how to complain and had confidence that any issues they raised would be addressed. No one was being supported at the end of their lives.
The provider had systems in place for seeking people’s views and they acted to make service improvements based on the feedback they received. People, their relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the management of the service. The provider displayed their rating in the registered office location. The provider held regular staff meetings to discuss service developments and to ensure staff were aware of the responsibilities of their roles. Staff told us the service had a positive working culture and they worked well as a team. The provider worked openly with other agencies including with social work professionals from the local authority.
This is the second consecutive time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.
The service had a registered manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, registered managers are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At this inspection we found breaches of legal requirements because risks to people had not always been assessed to ensure they were minimised, the provider’s quality assurance and recording systems were not always effective in driving improvements, and because recruitment practices were not always robust. You can see the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed by trained staff, where this was a part of their agreed plan of care. Medicines records were up to date and accurate, although improvement was required to ensure people’s care plans included details of any specific requirements people had with regard to the administration of individual medicines.
There were sufficient staff deployed by the service to safely meet people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had received safeguarding training. They were aware of the types of abuse that could occur and the action to take if they suspected abuse. Staff were supported in their roles through training and supervision and people told us they considered the staff supporting them to be competent.
People received support to eat and drink in sufficient amounts where this was an agreed part of their care plan. Staff confirmed they supported people to access healthcare services if and when needed. People confirmed staff sought their consent when offering them support. Staff told us, and records confirmed that people were able to make decisions around the support they received for themselves. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). None of the people receiving a service from the provider were deprived of their liberty.
People told us that staff treated them with kindness and consideration, and that they were treated with dignity. Staff respected people’s privacy and involved them in decisions about the support they received on a daily basis. People had been involved in developing their care plans which reflected their individual needs and preferences.
The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people told us they knew how to raise concerns. The registered manager told us the service had not received any complaints since registering in 2016 and this was reflected in the discussions we had with people.
The provider had systems in place to seek feedback from people about the service they received, although these were informal due to the small size of the service. People confirmed their views had been sought on a regular basis and told us they were happy with the service they received. Staff told us they worked well as a team and spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager and management team.