You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 December 2017

The inspection visit at Reliacare Limited was carried out on 07 November 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the service delivered domiciliary care to people who lived in their own homes. We needed to be sure people in the office and people the service supported would be available to speak to us. We contacted staff and conducted telephone interviews on 13 and 15 November.

Reliacare Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care support to people living with dementia, mental health and older people. It supports people who misuse drugs and alcohol, people who have a physical disability and younger adults, all who live in their own homes. The agency is situated in the town of Ulverston. The office is accessible to anyone with mobility problems. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people receiving a service from Reliacare Limited.

Reliacare Limited registered as a domiciliary care agency with the Care Quality Commission in October 2016. We had not previously inspected the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

During this inspection, we found staff had received training to safeguard people from abuse. They understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to the safeguarding of adults who may be vulnerable. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure. One staff member told us, “I would not leave if people weren’t safe.”

There was an appropriate skill mix of staff to ensure the needs of people who used the service were met. New staff worked alongside experienced staff members whilst they learnt their role.

The registered provider planned visits to allow carers enough time to reach people and complete all tasks safely.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were personalised and informative about the care people received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary. They reflected any risks and people’s changing needs.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they were competent and had the skills required. The registered provider completed spot checks on staff to observe their work practices were appropriate and people were safe.

Staff were provided with personal protective equipment to protect people and themselves from the spread of infection.

The registered provider had put in place procedures around recruitment and selection to minimise the risk of unsuitable employees working with people who may be vulnerable. Required checks had been completed before any staff started work at the service. This was confirmed during discussions with staff.

The registered provider had regularly completed a range of audits to maintain people’s safety and welfare.

Staff members received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

Staff told us they received regular formal and informal support from the management team.

People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care packages. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

When appropriate meals and drinks were prepared for people. This ensured people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

Care records contained information about the individual’s ongoing care and rehabilitation requirements. This showed the registered provider worked

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 December 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding and were aware of their duty to report suspicions of poor care and/or harm.

Risks to people were managed by staff that were aware of the assessments to reduce potential harm to people. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment to minimise the risk of spreading infection.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs safely. Staff members we spoke with consistently said they were allocated sufficient time to visit people and provide the support required.

Recruitment procedures the service had were safe. Gaps in employment were documented as being explored.

Staff were trained in the administration of medicines. Medicines protocols were safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 December 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the appropriate training and support to meet peoples’ needs.

Staff told us they received effective support and communication with the management team was good.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard. They had knowledge of the process to follow.

Where appropriate, people were protected against the risks of malnutrition and dehydration.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 December 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service told us they were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.

Staff we spoke with told us they had developed strong relationships and spoke about those they visited in a warm, compassionate manner.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People said the service ensured they were supported by the same staff who were consistently punctual.

People told us they received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt confident any issues they raised would be dealt with by the management team.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 December 2017

The service was well-led.

People, their relatives and staff felt the management team were supportive, visible, accessible and approachable.

The registered provider had ensured there were clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the management team.

The management team had oversight of and acted to maintain the quality of the service provided.

The management team had sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff.