You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

We inspected this service on 21 September 2017. The inspection was announced. The provider was given two working days’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the locations office to see us.

SCP Complex Care is registered as a community based domiciliary care agency (DCA) which delivers personal care and the treatment of disease, disorder or injury to people living in their own homes, including children living in the family home. The agency provide care and support to people who have complex health and support needs such as, an acquired brain injury or people requiring clinical support from registered nurses. At the time of our inspection the agency was supporting 86 people, within the South East. This was the first comprehensive inspection since the agency was registered on 30 September 2016.

At the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in place who was supported by a team of registered nurses and care staff.. 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 received a service that was safe and relatives told us they felt their loved one was safe. Staff received training in safeguarding adult and children and knew what action to take if they had suspicions. Potential risks to the safety and welfare of people had been assessed and minimised. Staff followed detailed guidance to minimise the risk to people and staff, both internally and externally.

There were sufficient numbers of staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff received the appropriate training including specialist training to fulfil their role and provide the appropriate support. People and their relatives could be assured that staff were fit to carry out their duties because recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with adults and children who needed care and support.

Staff were supported by the registered manager and the management team who they saw on a regular basis. The registered manager encouraged staff to undertake additional qualifications to develop their skills. A comprehensive induction programme was in place which all new staff completed. Staff had a clear understanding of their roles and people’s needs. Care staff were supported by a team of registered nurses who competed competency assessments with them as well as offering clinical support.

The agency was responsive to people’s needs, care plans were individualised and put the person at the centre of their care and support. People and/or their relatives were fully involved in the development of the service they received, as well as a review. People were asked for their consent before care was given and they were supported and enabled to make their own decisions. People were encouraged to be as independent as they could with guidance in place for staff to follow. Relatives told us their loved ones were treated with dignity and respect whilst receiving care and support from the agency. Information about people’s likes, dislikes and personal histories were recorded within their care plan.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and hydration, with support from health care professionals. Some people required specialist support from staff that was accommodated with appropriately trained staff. People were supported to maintain their health with the support from staff and health care professionals. People received their medicines safely by trained and competent staff. Policies and procedures were in place for the safe administration of medicines.

Systems were in place for monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the service. These included face to face reviews, regular audits and annual questionnaires. People and others feedback was sought and acted on to improve the quality of the service being provided to people.

Systems were in place to monitor and respond to concerns or complaints that had been raised. Complaints were seen as a positive way to improve the service which was being provided to people. A complaints policy and procedure was in place and information about how to make a complaint was provided to people and/or their relatives within the service user guide.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of potential harm or abuse.

Risks to people, staff and others had been assessed and recorded.

There was a sufficient number of staff to ensure that people�s needs were met. Staff were recruited safely to ensure they were able to work with adults and children who needed care and support.

Medicines were administered safely. People received the medicines they needed at the right time.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service was effective.

People received effective support from trained and competent staff that were able to meet their needs.

Staff were appropriately trained and had a good knowledge of how to meet people�s individual needs. Staff were supported in their role by the registered manager and nursing team.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people before they delivered any care.

People were supported to remain as healthy as possible including maintaining their nutrition and hydration.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were caring and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff promoted people�s independence and encouraged them to do as much for themselves as they were able to.

People and/or their relatives were involved in the development of their care plans. People�s personal preferences were recorded.

Staff had access to people�s likes, dislikes and personal histories. This information was stored confidentially.

Information about the agency was available to people and/or their relatives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff were responsive to people�s needs. People received an individualised service which was centred around their needs and preferences.

People and/or their relatives were included in decisions about their care and support.

People�s and others feedback was sought and acted on.

A complaints policy and procedure was in place and available to people.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 October 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager was skilled and experienced, and understood their role and responsibility to provide quality care and support to people.

The registered manager was supported by a team of registered nurses and a senior management team.

There was an open culture where staff were kept informed and able to suggest ideas to improve the service.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service that was provided to people.