You are here

Vine Social Care Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 August 2018

The inspection took place on 13 and 14 June 2018 and was announced, this was to ensure staff we needed to speak with were available. This was the first inspection due to the service being new so we could not gather any information from past reports.

Vine Social Care is a domiciliary care agency; it provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older and younger adults who may be living with a physical disability, a mental health condition, a learning disability or people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 29 people were using the service.

We identified breaches of two Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and one breach of Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we have taken at the back of the full version of the report.

The provider had a recruitment process to make sure the staff they employed were suitable to work in a care setting. However these were not always consistent and some staff had commenced employment without the required checks being completed.

Risks to people were assessed and action was taken to minimise any avoidable harm to people. Staff were trained to know the signs of abuse and how to report these in line with policy and procedures. However, the provider had not consistently reported these concerns to the relevant safeguarding teams. The provider had failed to notify the CQC and relevant agencies of safeguarding concerns which could have resulted in people not being kept safe.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff who administered medicines were appropriately trained, however staff did not receive medicines management competency checks so the provider could not be assured that staff were competent. There were unaccounted for gaps in people’s medicine administration records (MARS) charts which had not been identified in the provider’s audits There was no evidence of anyone coming to harm with regards to the management of their prescribed medicines.

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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was guidance in place to protect people from risks to their safety and welfare, this included the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely and where there were any short falls these were covered internally or with agency staff.

Staff were aware of the importance of infection prevention and control and their responsibility to ensure that infection risks were minimised. Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff raised concerns with regard to safety incidents, concerns and near misses, and reported them accordingly. The registered manager analysed incidents and accidents to identify trends and implement measures to prevent a further occurrence.

People's needs had been assessed and they had a written care plan to meet their identified needs.

People were supported by staff who had the required skills and training to meet their needs. Where required, staff completed additional training to meet individual's needs. People were supported to have a balanced diet that promoted healthy eating.

The registered manager involved a range of external health and social care professionals in the care of people, such as: community nurses, physiotherapists and GPs to enable them to be supported to live healthier lives.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and st

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

The provider did not do the relevant checks consistently to

employ sufficient, suitable staff to keep people safe.

People were not consistently protected against risks to their safety and wellbeing, including the risks of abuse and avoidable harm.

People received their medicines as prescribed and according to their preferences. Staff competency to administer medicines was not assessed.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was effective.

People received person-centred individualised care from staff who were given comprehensive training and ongoing support

Staff worked in partnership with other services to help ensure people received effective care.

Staff respected people's legal rights and freedoms.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff understood people's needs and were caring and attentive.

People were treated with kindness, respect and dignity at all

times. Staff interacted positively and patiently with people

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People's care and support met their needs and took their preferences into account.

People's complaints and concerns were investigated and dealt with accordingly.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 August 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

The provider failed to notify the Care Quality Commission of

safeguarding incidents.

People were supported by a service that used quality assurance processes to monitor the service people received although these were not always effective.

Incidents were used as learning opportunities to drive improvements within the service.