Archived: Concept Care Solutions Northampton

This inspection took place on 26 and 27 July 2018 and was announced.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 08 June and 10 June 2016, the service was rated Good.

At this announced inspection on 26 and 27 July, found the service remained 'Good'.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses. It provides a service to older adults.

Concept Care Solutions, Northampton provides a personal care service to people who live in their own homes in the community, including a live- in service for some people. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 44 people.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff had been provided with safeguarding training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report them. There were risk management plans in place to protect and promote people’s safety. Staffing numbers were appropriate to keep people safe and the registered provider followed thorough recruitment procedures to ensure staff employed were suitable for their role.

People’s medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice guidelines. Systems were in place to ensure that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service

People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with best practice that met their diverse needs. Staff received an induction process when they first commenced work at the service and received on-going training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

People received enough to eat and drink and staff gave support when required. People were supported to use and access a wide variety of other services and social care professionals. The staff had a good knowledge of other services available to people and we saw these had been involved with supporting people using the service. People were supported to access health appointments when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People continued to receive good care. They had developed positive relationship with the staff who understood their needs. Staff were kind, caring and treated people with dignity and respect.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the care planning process. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.

The management and leadership within the service had a clear structure and the registered manager was knowledgeable about people's needs and key issues and challenges within the service. Staff felt supported and valued. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the care provided and to ensure the values; aims and objectives of the service were met. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to report events that occurred within the service to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and external agencies.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

People had care plans that were personalised to their individual needs and wishes. Records contained detailed information to assist care workers to provide care and support in an individualised manner that respected each person's individual requirements and promoted treating people with dignity.

People told us that they felt cared for safely in their own home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staff understood their role in caring for people with limited or no capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required safely and at the times they needed. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work in their home.

People received care from staff that were compassionate, friendly and kind and who would go the extra mile to support people and their families. Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide the care and support people needed and were supported by a management team which was receptive to ideas and committed to providing a high standard of care.

The registered manager supported a management team which was approachable and supportive. There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.

The evidence we gathered about this agency's domiciliary care services enabled us to answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive to people's needs? Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that people's needs had been appropriately assessed before they were provided with domiciliary care support. We saw documentary evidence of this in the three care files we looked at. This meant that staff had the information they needed about people's care needs and were able to provide safe care.

There were sufficient numbers of experienced and competent staff available to meet people's personal care needs. We saw documentation that showed staff had been appropriately trained and received the managerial support they needed to do their job. The two staff we spoke with said they had received training in the protection of vulnerable adults and they knew how to report concerns about poor care or respond to allegations of abuse. This meant that people were protected from the risk of neglect or unsafe care.

Suitable arrangements were in place to respond to emergencies, with the manager always being available 'on call' to support staff to manage the situation safely and in a timely way.

Is the service effective?

We saw from the records we looked at that the staff had received the information, training and managerial support they needed to do their job effectively. There were arrangements in place that ensured staff had the most up-to-date information about people's care needs. The two staff we spoke with individually were able to tell us about people's individual needs and how they delivered their care. This meant that because staff had a good knowledge of each person's care needs and preferences they were able to provide effective care.

Is the service caring?

All the people we spoke with said the staff were friendly, helpful, and conscientious. People were provided with support in their own home at a level which encouraged independence and ensured their individual needs were met. On person said, 'The carers are all very pleasant and helpful. They have a good manner about them which I appreciate.' Another person said that the care staff had always been 'respectful' when doing their job.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

We saw that there was enough staff available to meet the needs of the three people that received a domiciliary service. This was also confirmed by the two people we visited in their own home, and the relative of the third person we spoke with. People said the service was reliable and flexible.

The two staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to support people in a way that respected each person as an individual, each with their own needs and preferences for how they wished to receive their care and support.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager for this service although when we inspected we met with the newly appointed branch manager who was taking over this role. We were told that this person was submitting an application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as registered manager of the Northampton location when the current registered manager stood down.

The two staff we spoke with said they received a good level of practical day-to-day managerial support to enable them to carry out their care duties. They said they had sufficient time to travel between people's homes so that they were not late arriving at their next scheduled call. The two staff we spoke with said that their manager had an 'open door' approach so that they were able to express any concerns or ask for guidance whenever they needed to.