• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

COOCI Associates LLP

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Riverside House, 44 Wedgewood Street, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 7HL (01844) 221200

Provided and run by:
COOCI Associates LLP

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

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 9 September 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 checked 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 on 21 and 22 August 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a case management service, so we needed to be sure someone would be available to assist with the inspection. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to over 100 people but only four people were receiving personal care.

Prior to and after the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service including notifications. Notifications are changes or events that occur at the service which the provider has a legal duty to inform us about.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete 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 reviewed the completed PIR and used this to inform our inspection.

We sent out 75 questionnaires to people who used the service, relatives and friends, staff and community professionals. We received 9 responses from those who knew the service. We spoke with five staff including the registered manager, three relatives and one person.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. These included care records for two people, medicine administration record (MAR) sheets and other records relating to the management of the service. We examined staff training records and support and employment records for three staff. Other documents we viewed included quality assurance audits, minutes of meetings with staff, and incident reports amongst others.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

This inspection was carried out on 21 and 22 August 2017. It was the first inspection carried out since the provider moved locations in August 2016. COOCI Associates LLP is a case management service. Their purpose is to support people who have experienced catastrophic or life changing injuries. The service acts as an intermediary between the person needing the support and specialist agencies who supply the care (support workers).Case managers are responsible for ensuring people’s needs are met. They also support people to employ their own staff, for example support workers and/or therapists. At the time of the inspection there were four people receiving personal care.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 told us they felt safe using the service. The provider had systems in place to assess the risks to people and their environment. Where risks were identified these had been minimised. The risks to people and staff were kept under constant review. Trends were identified and action taken to prevent a reoccurrence where possible.

Staff received training in how to identify signs of abuse. Records showed appropriate action had been taken where concerns were raised. This helped protect people from harm.

Safe recruitment systems were in place to ensure as far as possible staff were suitable to work with people. Staff were trained and received support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. They were encouraged to feedback ideas to assist with the improvement of the service, through supervision, meetings and general discussion.

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. The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA).

People and relatives told us the staff were supportive and described them as friendly, polite and understanding. Examples were given to us of the caring nature of the case managers, which demonstrated how kind and considerate the staff were.

People were involved in the planning and review of their care. Regular meetings were held with people to ensure they were happy with the delivery of care and any changes that may have been required. People were supported to be as independent as possible. People’s dreams and wants were explored with them to ensure personal goals where feasible were fulfilled.

The provider ensured information was made available to people in a format they could understand, where necessary translators were used to ensure information sharing was clear and concise.

People with protected characteristics had been assisted by the service to achieve their own goals and their preferences and their lifestyles were respected.

The provider’s complaints policy set out how people could make complaints and these would be taken seriously. Where a complaint had been made, this was followed through and used to drive improvements in the service delivery.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the partners of the service. There was an open culture of communication, and staff supported each other. Quality assurance checks and feedback from people, relative’s staff and professionals was used to drive forward improvements to the service.

Staff understood the aim of the service and worked together to accomplish providing good quality and effective care.