Archived: Sugarman Health and Wellbeing - Liverpool

Updated 26 January 2018

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 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 18 and 19 December 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice prior to the inspection visits. Prior notice was provided because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that staff would be available on the day.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and 'an expert by experience' who supported with phone calls to relatives. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information which was held on Sugarman Health and Wellbeing Ltd. This included notifications we had received from the registered provider such as incidents which had occurred in relation to the people who were being supported. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law.

A Provider Information Return (PIR) was not received prior to the inspection. This is the form that asks the provider to give some key information in relation to the service, what the service does well and what improvements need to be made. As we did not receive a PIR and we took this into account when we made the judgements in this report. We also contacted commissioners and the local authority prior to the inspection. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, three members of staff, one relative and two healthcare professionals.

We also spent time reviewing specific records and documents, including three care records of people who were receiving support, four staff personnel files, staff training records, medication administration records and audits, complaints, accidents and incidents and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 26 January 2018

This inspection took place on 18 and 19 December, 2017 and was announced.

Sugarman Health and Wellbeing Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to young and older adults. At the time of the inspection the registered provider was providing support to three people.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 had a number of different systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the care being provided. This meant that people were receiving safe, compassionate and effective care. Such systems included monthly ‘spot checks', monthly care plan and medication audits as well as annual quality questionnaires.

Care files we reviewed during the inspection contained individual care plans and risk assessments. Records were well maintained, were regularly reviewed and updated in order to minimise risk and to ensure the correct level of support was being provided.

Care plans were person-centred and provided detailed information in relation to a person’s wishes, choices and preferences.

Relatives and healthcare professionals we spoke with told us that good quality care was being provided and they felt the staff genuinely cared for the people they were there to support.

Medication management systems were being safely and effectively managed. People’s care plans included detailed information about how medication needed to be supported, at what time of day people needed medication support, where medication was stored and who was ordering and disposing of medications.

The recruitment processes were reviewed during the inspection. We found that the area of ‘recruitment’ was safely and effectively managed. This meant that all staff who were working for the registered provider had sufficient reference and disclosure and barring system checks (DBS) in place. DBS checks ensure that staff who are employed to care and support people are suitable to work within a health and social care setting. This enables the registered manager to assess level of suitability for working with vulnerable adults.

People were protected from avoidable harm and risk of abuse as there were robust safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were familiar with the area of safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns. Staff had completed the necessary safeguarding training which was in place.

Staff expressed how they were fully supported in their roles; all necessary training had been completed and they felt that they were able to fulfil their roles effectively. Staff received regular supervisions, annual appraisals and regular team meetings were taking place.

There was a system in place to monitor and assess all accidents and incidents. The registered manager explained that there was very little activity in relation to accident/incidents but staff were aware of the reporting procedures. There was also a reporting policy in place which staff were familiar with.

The day-to-day support needs of people who were being supported was well managed by the registered provider. The appropriate referrals were taking place when needed and relevant guidance and advice which was provided by professionals was being followed accordingly.

People and relatives were provided with a ‘service user’ guide as well as the registered provider’s complaints procedure from the outset. People/Relatives knew how to make a complaint and the registered provider had a sufficient complaints policy in place.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and appreciated that the CQC needed to be notified of events and incidents that occurred in accordance with the CQC’s statutory notifications procedures.

We reviewed the range of different policies and procedures which were in place. Policies we reviewed included safeguarding adults, equality and diversity, confidentiality, whistleblowing, serious incidents, infection prevention and control and medication administration policies. Policies and procedures were all up-to-date and were available to all staff as and when they needed to access them.