We carried out a review of the data available to us about Clayfields Business Centre 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 Clayfields Business Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
Clayfields Business Centre is a domiciliary care agency providing support for people in their own homes. Not everyone using the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. The service was supporting around 80 people at the time of the inspection.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
At the time of the inspection, the location did not care or support for anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group.
Right Support:
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.
Right Care:
People's care was personalised and enabled them to achieve good outcomes. Risks to people's safety were assessed and monitored and people had personalised risk assessments in place.
Right Culture:
People were encouraged to share their views and develop and improve the service. The quality of support provided was evaluated regularly.
Staff received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report potential safeguarding concerns to the registered manager. Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and formed part of a needs assessment. This information was used to develop care plans and guide staff on how to manage those risks. Systems were in place to ensure the safe recruitment of staff. This included references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Staff received training in medicine administration and their competency was assessed. Only staff assessed as competent could support people with their medicines. Staff understood and followed safe infection control guidelines and knew how to minimise risks of infection.
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.
We received positive feedback from people about Clayfields Business Centre. People felt well cared for and looked after. The provider used audits to monitor and improve the quality and safety of care. Surveys were used to gather feedback from staff and people about the service. The results were analysed and used to make changes in response. The provider and staff worked with other health and social care professionals to improve people's outcomes, and ensure people received care and treatment that was relevant to their changing needs and circumstances.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 31 October 2019). We found breaches of regulation 12 and 17.
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall 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.
Clayfields Business Centre is a domiciliary care service providing care in people’s homes. At the time of our inspection it was providing personal care to 52 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Medicines shortfalls were not appropriately investigated to ensure people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. The registered manager was not analysing and monitoring accidents and incidents, so lessons could be learnt. Audits needed to be further strengthened and embedded into practice.
People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff received suitable and sufficient training to enable them to carry out their roles and responsibilities. People received safe and effective care from staff who understood how to recognise and report issues of concern and potential abused.
People were cared for by staff who had completed training in infection control procedures.
We recommended that accessible information is provided to people in line with the accessible information standard (AIS).
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 received health care support when needed and people received support with preparing and cooking meals when this was an assessed need.
The provider had a safe recruitment system in place.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff were kind and caring and supported people to make their own choices about their care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
At this inspection enough improvement had not been sustained and the provider was still in breach of regulations.
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 24 October 2018). The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.
We have identified breaches in relation to Regulation 12 Medicines and Regulation 17 Governance at this inspection.
We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 4 September 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides services in people’s home and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office.
At the last inspection in August 2016 the service was rated requires improvement. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Clayfields Business Centre’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions effective and well led to at least good. At this inspection we found that evidence continued to support the rating of requires improvement.
At the last inspection the provider did not have an effective system in place to monitor the quality of service delivery, staff performance and feedback from people who used the service. At this inspection we saw improvements had been made, as the provider sought people’s views and used this to improve the service. However, we found shortfalls in the records relating to the support people received with their medicines. Although the provider’s audit system had been improved, it was evident that it needed further improvement, as these shortfalls had not been identified by the system in place.
There was also room to improve the care plans and written guidance for staff, as care plans we saw at the office did not provide sufficient detailed guidance for staff on areas such as catheter care or the use of hoists and slings.
At the last inspection staff were not always receiving appropriate support, training, and supervision necessary to carry out their roles. Staff induction was basic and required embedding into practice. At this inspection the records we saw showed improvements had been made in this area.
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 a procedure in place to ensure any safeguarding concerns were addressed and reported. People we spoke with felt safe using the service. Overall, the service had a recruitment system in place which was used effectively when they employed new staff. This process included obtaining pre-employment checks prior to people commencing employment.
The provider supported people to maintain a healthy diet, when this was part of the person’s care package. People who required the involvement of health care professionals were assisted to obtain this support. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed.
People we spoke with were highly satisfied with the service saying it was well managed and there was good communication. They told us staff arrived on time and were well trained. People told us staff respected them and their homes.
The culture and ethos within the service was that of dignity and choice for people. This was achieved by encouraging people’s involvement and ensuring through training that staff had a positive approach to equality, diversity and human rights.
The service had a complaints procedure and concerns received were acted upon in a timely way and in line with the provider’s policy. People we spoke with felt able to raise concerns.
During this inspection we identified a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in respect of the management of medicines. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Clayfields Business Centre is the name of the location. The provider is Embrace Care Limited. The service provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. Care and support is co-ordinated from the main office which is situated in Balby near Doncaster.
At the time of our inspection 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.
The service had a recruitment system in place which was used when they employed new staff. This process included obtaining pre-employment checks prior to people commencing employment.
The provider had a procedure in place to ensure any safeguarding concerns were addressed and reported. People we spoke with felt safe using the service.
The service did not manage anyone’s medicines at the time of our inspection. However, the registered manager confirmed that an appropriate process would be followed if someone required this support.
Risks associated with people’s care had been identified and methods put in place to minimise the risk occurring.
Staff did not always receive appropriate support, training, and supervision necessary to carry out their roles. Staff induction was basic and required embedding in to practice.
The registered manager informed us that if anyone began using their service who lacked capacity, they would ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed.
The provider supported people to maintain a healthy diet, when this was part of the persons care package.
People who required the involvement of health care professionals were assisted to obtain this support.
We spoke with staff and they told us how they ensured people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. Staff told us they would respect people’s homes and told us they always knocked on the door before entering their property.
We looked at care records belonging to people who used the service and found they were informative. However, further information regarding likes and dislikes could be added to ensure they are person centred.
The service had a complaints procedure and concerns received were acted upon in a timely way and in line with the provider’s policy. People we spoke with felt able to raise concerns.
The provider did not have an effective system in place to monitor the quality of service delivery, staff performance and feedback from people who used the service.
During this inspection we identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.