You are here

Archived: Connections (West Yorkshire) Health and Social Care CIC

Reports


Inspection carried out on 16 January 2015

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

When we visited the service in November 2013 we found the provider was not meeting the regulation regarding requirements relating to workers. We asked the provider to make improvements.

We carried out this follow up inspection to check whether improvements had been made.

We spoke with the provider and the registered manager who told us they had carried out the required improvements since our last inspection. We also spoke with a member of staff who told us they carried out audits within the service. The staff member told us they had updated all of the staff personnel records since our last inspection to ensure they held the required information to show how the recruitment process had been followed. Records we looked at confirmed this. We also saw evidence which showed records were being regularly audited.

Inspection carried out on 28 November 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At this follow up inspection we found the provider had made improvements to the recruitment process. However, we found the provider had failed to follow their own recruitment process in relation to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

Since the last inspection the provider had updated their recruitment policy. The provider’s recruitment policy stated: ‘No offer of employment will be made without the following documentation: A minimum of 2 references… A clear DBS at enhanced level…’ The provider’s recruitment policy did not refer to Adult First Checks, despite the provider using these prior to an enhanced DBS check being made.

We spoke with the manager and provider who told us of the improvements the service had made in relation to care records. We looked at three care records and found they were detailed and person centred. We saw a comprehensive assessment was completed by the manager prior to a service being provided. This meant the provider was fully aware of a person’s needs and could determine whether they were able to meet that person’s needs.

Inspection carried out on 17 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people and two relatives of people who used the service. The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care provided and felt the carers understood their needs. People said they were involved in making choices and decisions in relation to their care. One person said; “I’m involved in my care. They listen to me.” Another person told us; “I can change things.” People made the following comments about the staff:

“They are very considerate.”

“I’ve a good rapport with them. They are lovely.”

“They’re very nice.”

“They know what to do. They are polite and respectful.”

“They’re lovely.”

“They’re very helpful.”

Through speaking with both people who used the service and staff, we found no evidence to suggest that people’s needs had not been met. However people’s needs were not always reflected in the care records. We found that people’s personal records were not accurate or fit for purpose.

We looked at three staff records. In two of the records there was no documentation to show proof of the staff members’ identity. The provider told us this information was securely destroyed after six months. We found that one member of staff had not had a Disclosure and Barring Service (previously known as a Criminal Records Bureau) check in place prior to working with people who used the service.

The people we spoke with were aware the provider had a complaints policy in place and knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.

Inspection carried out on 12 July 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency as part of a targeted inspection programme of domiciliary care agencies with particular regard to how people's dignity was upheld and how they can make choices about their care. The inspection team was led by a 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 conducted telephone interviews with people who use the service or their main carers (a relative or friends) to gain their views about the service. We also visited people in their own home.

We spoke with seven people on the telephone who use the service. They were extremely positive and complimentary about the service they received. They all felt they were treated with dignity and respect and were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as possible. Most people were happy with the care staff and said care staff talked talk to them and explained what they were doing. Everyone told us they had been involved in making decisions about their care.

We visited three people in their own home who received a service from this agency. While on our home visits, we also spoke to the relative of a person receiving care from this agency. Everyone we met told us they were happy with the care they received.