Background to this inspection
Updated
19 May 2017
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 was 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.
The office visit took place on 20 April 2017 and was announced. We told the provider before the visit we would be coming so they could arrange for us to speak with care staff. The inspection was conducted by one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using, or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Prior to the office visit we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at the statutory notifications the service had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. We contacted the local authority commissioners to find out their views of the service provided. Commissioners are people who contract care and support services paid for by the local authority. They had no new information to share about the service.
Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We were able to review the information in the PIR during the inspection. The PIR was an accurate assessment of how the service operated.
The provider also sent a list of people who used the service; this was so we could contact people by phone to ask them their views of the service. We spoke with 16 people by phone, eight people who used the service and eight relatives, one of whom contacted us after the office visit to share their views about the service.
During our visit we spoke with three care workers, a care co-ordinator, an administrator/co-ordinator, the provider’s quality monitoring officer and the compliance manager who supported the inspection in the absence of the registered manager. We reviewed three people’s care records to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We checked whether staff had been recruited safely and were trained to deliver the care and support people required. We looked at other records related to people’s care and how the service operated including the service’s quality assurance audits and complaints.
Updated
19 May 2017
Homebased Care Coventry is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the agency provided care and support to approximately 69 people and employed 50 care staff.
At the last inspection of the service in July 2015 we rated the service as Good. Since the last inspection the provider had changed their registration details. This meant the service was required to be re-inspected and rated.
We visited the office of Homebased Care Coventry on 20 April 2017. We told the provider before the visit we were coming so they could arrange for staff to be available to talk with us about the service. The visit was supported by the organisations quality manager and the compliance manager, who was also the nominated individual for the service.
A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was unavailable on the day of our visit.
There were systems and processes to protect people from risk of harm. Staff understood their responsibilities for keeping people safe and for reporting concerns about abuse or poor practice within the service. There were procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely. Staff’s suitability for their role was checked before they started working in people’s homes.
There were enough staff to deliver the care and support people required. Staff received an induction when they started working for the service and completed regular training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. People told us staff had the skills to provide the care and support they required.
The managers and staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff respected decisions people made about their care and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care.
People had different experiences with the times staff arrived to provide their care. Some people said staff arrived around the time expected; others said they had experienced late or missed calls. Some people told us the service they received at weekends was not as consistent or reliable as the service they received during the week.
Most people told us staff stayed long enough to provide the care they required and people said they received care from staff they knew. Staff we spoke with visited the same people regularly and knew how people liked their care delivered. Care plans provided guidance for staff about people’s care needs and instructions of what they needed to do on each call.
People told us staff were kind and respected their privacy. Staff felt supported to do their work effectively and said the managers were approachable and knowledgeable. There was an ‘out of hours’ on call system, which ensured management support and advice was always available for staff.
People knew how to make a complaint, and people and staff said they could raise any concerns or issues with the managers.
Quality assurance systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included asking people for their views about the service through telephone conversations, visits to review their care and annual questionnaires. Feedback gathered by the provider from people and their relatives was used to make improvements to the service. There was a programme of other checks and audits which the provider used to monitor and improve the service.