We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sunshine Care (Rochdale) C.I.C. 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 Sunshine Care (Rochdale) C.I.C., you can give feedback on this service.
Sunshine Care (Rochdale) CIC is a Community Interest Company which means it is a 'not for profit' organisation. The agency provides help and support to adults with a variety of needs in their own homes. Services provided include assistance with personal care, help with domestic tasks and carer support. 75 people currently use the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Safeguarding policies, procedures and staff training helped protect people from harm. Risk assessments helped protect the health and welfare of people who used the service. The administration of medicines was safe.
People were supported to live healthy lives because they had access to professionals, a well-trained staff team and a choice of a nutritious diet. The service worked with other organisations to provide effective and consistent care. 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 treated as individuals which helped protect their dignity. People’s equality and diversity was respected by a caring staff team. People told us they felt well treated and supported.
People told us they felt able to raise any concerns. Activities were provided as part of people’s care package and we were told staff also volunteered to take people out to places of interest. Plans of care provided staff with necessary information to meet people’s needs.
The registered manager and key staff knew people well and often provided care and support. People who used the service, family members and staff said managers were available and approachable. People and staff were able to air their views about how the service was run.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (final report published 25 May 2017).
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 the last inspection of March 2016 the service did not meet all the regulations we inspected and were given two requirement actions. This was because recruitment procedures were not robust and staff did not receive supervision and refresher training. The service sent us an action plan telling us how they intended to meet the regulations. At this inspection we saw the improvements had been made and the regulations were met.
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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.
Staff received an induction and were supported when they commenced employment to become competent to work with vulnerable people. Staff were well trained and supervised to feel confident within their roles. Staff were encouraged to take further training in health and social care topics.
Staff we spoke with were aware of how to protect vulnerable people and had safeguarding policies and procedures to guide them, which included the contact details of the local authority to report to.
Risk assessments for health needs or environmental hazards helped protect the health and welfare of people who used the service but did not restrict their lifestyles.
Staff were trained in the administration of medicines and managers checked the records to help spot any errors and keep people safe.
Staff were trained in infection control topics and issued with personal protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infection.
People were supported to take a healthy diet if required and staff were trained in food safety.
Staff told us how they would support someone if they thought their liberty was being deprived to help protect their rights.
We observed a good rapport between people who used the service and the registered manager. People who used the service told us staff were reliable and they knew them well.
Personal records were held securely to help protect people’s privacy.
There was a complaints procedure for people to raise any concerns they may have.
People were assisted to attend meaningful activities as part of their package or staff good will.
Plans of care gave staff clear details of what care people needed. People helped develop their plans of care to ensure the care they received was what they wanted.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision and where needed the manager took action to improve the service.
The office was suitable for providing a domiciliary care service and was staffed during office hours. There was an on call service for people to contact out of normal working hours.
People who used the service thought managers were accessible and available to talk to.
Sunshine Care (Rochdale) C.I.C is a domiciliary care agency which at the time of our inspection was providing personal care to 76 people who lived in their own homes. The agency is a community interest company which means it is a ‘not for profit’ organisation. The agency refers to care staff as ‘personal assistants’; this term is therefore used throughout this report. We were told that people who used the service either paid privately for their care or had their care commissioned by the local authority.
The service had a registered manager in place as required under the conditions of their registration with the Care Quality Commission. 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. The registered manager was supported in the day to day running of the service by one of the board of directors.
During this inspection we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the recruitment processes in place were not sufficiently robust. The provider also did not have robust systems in place to ensure personal assistants received regular refresher training and supervision .You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Personal assistants had not been safely recruited. This was because two of the personnel files we reviewed only contained one reference; this was not in accordance with the provider’s own recruitment policy. Required additional checks had not been undertaken to find out why any prospective staff member’s previous employment with children or vulnerable adults had ended. Such checks are important to help ensure people who used the service were protected from the risk of people unsuitable to work with vulnerable groups.
Personal assistants had received training in safeguarding adults. They were able to tell us of the action they would take to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse. They told us they would also be confident to use the whistleblowing procedure in the service to report any poor practice they might observe.
Improvements needed to be made to the way personal assistants recorded the medicines prescribed to people who used the service.
People who used the service told us they were impressed by the consistency, reliability and flexibility of the team of personal assistants who supported them. People who used the service told us their personal assistants always visited at the time agreed and stayed for the correct amount of time. They told us that personal assistants never appeared rushed during their visits and always took the time to complete any tasks they asked of them. They told us all their personal assistants were knowledgeable about their needs and appeared well trained.
Risk assessments for physical health needs and environmental risks helped protect the health and welfare of people who used the service. Arrangements were in place to help ensure the prevention and control of infection.
Where necessary people who used the service received support from their personal assistants to ensure their nutritional needs were met. Records we reviewed showed personal assistants had contacted health professionals as appropriate if they had any concerns regarding a person they supported.
All the people we spoke with gave positive feedback regarding the kind and caring nature of all personal assistants and managers in the service. People who used the service told us they were able to make choices about the care they received and personal assistants enabled them to maintain their independence as much as possible. Comments people made to us included, “The care is very good. They [personal assistants] are all friendly”, “The carers so good to me” and “They [personal assistants] are always kind to me. I regard most of them as friends.” This view was confirmed by a relative who commented, “The carers are absolutely outstanding. They are lovely people; very kind and considerate. They feel more like friends coming in now.”
People who used the service told us they had been involved in agreeing their support plans. They told us their personal assistants always provided the care they wanted and were always willing to complete any additional tasks they requested of them. Comments people made to us included, “They do whatever I ask”, “They willingly do anything I ask them to do” and “They ask if there is anything else they can do before they go; if it’s possible they will do it.”
People who used the service and their relatives were asked to comment on the service during spot checks conducted by the managers in the service and in the surveys distributed by the provider. We noted that most of the 37 respondents to the provider’s most recent survey in May 2015 had given the highest possible score in all areas. Positive responses had also been received to the survey distributed by CQC prior to this inspection taking place.
We noted that there was a complaints procedure in place for people who used the service to use if they wanted to raise any concerns about the care and support they received. All the people we spoke with told us would feel able to discuss any concerns with their personal assistants or managers in the service although they told us they could not envisage any circumstances in which they would need to complain about the support they received.
All the people we spoke with during the inspection, including people who used the service, relatives and personal assistants, spoke highly of the leadership displayed by the managers in the service. Managers regularly worked alongside personal assistants to check that they were meeting the high standards expected of them and to gather direct feedback from people who used the service.
There were a number of quality assurance systems in place to help drive forward improvements in the service. All the personal assistants we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service and considered they provided a high quality of care. We noted that personal assistants were consulted about the way the service was run, including how any profits made should be used for the benefits of both people who used the service and staff.
The two people using the service that we spoke with told us, 'They look after me very well, they are very kind and I feel very fortunate to have them' and 'They know what they are doing and I also need to tell you that the two Managers are excellent'.
Systems were in place to help protect people by ensuring that staff were suitably trained in the safeguarding of vulnerable people. The people we spoke with told us, 'The staff are very kind and I feel safe with them' and 'I have no worries, they are a very good team and I trust them'.
Arrangements were in place to ensure that people using the service were cared for by staff that were safely recruited.
Regular monitoring of the service provided was in place to help protect people against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care.
The inspection team was led by a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector joined by an
Expert by Experience who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
We used postal surveys, telephone interviews and home visits to people who use the service and to their main carers (a relative or friend) to gain views about the service. Overall we spoke to 11 people and received eight completed questionnaires from service users and carers. We visited the office to look at records and talk to the manager. We also talked to three other members of staff.
People using the service with whom we spoke and who completed the questionnaires said care workers always treated them with respect and called them by their preferred name. One relative said, "Absolutely treat her (the person using the service) with respect. They always treat her as a person and talk to her and say and do the right things". Another said, "He (the person using the service) has a very good relationship with all the care workers ".
People also told us they felt they had sufficient choices in the care provided. They had
been involved in the setting up of their care, and had been offered choices in the times of the visits and flexibility in the support given according to need. One person said, "We wanted a later visit and this was accommodated immediately".
People had also been given information about the agency and generally knew what to do if there were problems or changes to be made to their service. Some people we spoke with recalled completing a questionnaire as part of the agency's own quality monitoring system.
Overall people told us they were satisfied with the service. One person said, "To be honest they are very good; we are happy with the service". Another person using the service told us, "Sunshine Care is great, they increase my mobility, are adaptable, well trained and encourage me to be on my own". One relative said, "They are wonderful; they do a marvellous job ". Another relative said, "I can't fault them they meet all our needs. Everything about Sunshine Care is excellent".
Most people also told us the service was reliable and with good continuity and consistency of care with a group of care workers who were known to them. One person said, "They try to keep the carers to a minimum; we know them all ". A relative said "The service is very reliable; we have never been let down ". However two people we spoke with made some negative comments about the consistency of their service which were discussed with the manager who agreed to follow these up.
Staff spoken with told us they felt properly trained and supported and confirmed the support systems such as one to one supervision, appraisals and staff meetings. One member of staff told us she was always properly shown how to use moving and handling equipment. One relative said, "They (the care workers) seem highly trained".
Although all the people using the service, and their relatives, told us they were very satisfied with the service we were concerned the agency was not protecting people as well as they should. When allegations of abuse had been made the agency had not followed the correct procedures, and some risks associated with some aspects of care and support had not been properly assessed. We were concerned that these risks were not always being well managed or that staff knew what to do what to do to keep people safe.