You are here

Archived: Combined Care Services

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 August 2012
Date of Publication: 18 October 2012
Inspection Report - DC published 18 October 2012 PDF | 50.24 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 24/08/2012, checked the provider's records, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, reviewed information from people who use the service, talked to staff, reviewed information from stakeholders and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

User experience

We spoke with people who received support from the agency to gain their views on how well the care staff members were providing safe and appropriate care. They said their support needs were being met and that they had confidence in the staff members who were visiting them. Comments from the people we visited or contacted by telephone included, “Absolutely brilliant.”

People told us that an assessment of their needs had been carried out when they started receiving support from the agency. This had then been used by the staff and with the person to produce a care plan and risk assessments for them to work to. Everyone we spoke with said they had a care folder with all the details of their assessments and plans.

The people we spoke to said that they felt their care was based around their needs as a person and that they were met appropriately.

People told us that they felt able to express their views and make choices about their care and support.

Other evidence

Assessment of people's needs.

We looked at the care files of five people during this review. They all included a pre-service assessment to ascertain whether their needs could be met. This would be done wherever the person was; this could include their own home or another care setting such as a respite centre or a hospital. As part of this process the agency would also get the person’s family, social worker or other professionals to add to the assessment if it was necessary. We saw that the assessments included information about personal preferences and choices such as what the person preferred to be called.

Care Planning

We found that each person using the service had a care plan that was written from the information gathered during the assessment.

We looked at five of these to see what support people needed and how this was recorded. We saw that each plan was detailed, personalised and reflected the needs of the individual. We also saw that the plans were written in a style that would enable the person reading it to have a good idea of what help and assistance someone needed at a particular time. The plans we looked at had the following note; “ensure the task is completed in a respectful and dignified manner.” All of the plans we looked at were well maintained and were up to date. The reviews were detailed, as were the daily records, so staff knew what changes, if any, had been made. Managers and staff made every effort to ensure that the person understood the arrangements made for their care and support and knew about the choices and opportunities open to them.

Risk assessments, including the environment were carried out and kept under review so that the people receiving a service were safeguarded from unnecessary hazards. We could see that the agency’s staff members were working closely with the person and, where appropriate, their representatives. This ensured that the management of risk was balanced against safety and the person's rights to live a fulfilling lifestyle without unnecessary restriction.

There were two copies of each care plan; there was a copy in the office and an identical copy, with additional documents so that staff members could report on what they have done each day in the individual’s own home.

All of the files we looked at were well maintained, tidy and up to date.

Delivery of Care

People told us that staff members usually arrived and left at the designated times. They stayed for the full length of time and checked all was well before leaving. Staff members did not miss calls, but sometimes they could be late if the previous call needed extra time or if there was another problem. Service users were notified by phone if this occurred. People did say that this rarely happened.

The provider/manager told us that she checked the quality of care delivery through direct contact with service users and by supervision of the care workers. Some people who used the agency said that they had completed a monitoring form about whether they were happy with the service being provided. We saw some of the completed forms in the agency office. The staff members we talked to in the office and those we observed during our home visits could show that they had a good understanding of the people they were supporting and that they were able to meet their various needs. During the home visits we saw that they were interacting well with people and the relationships we saw were warm, respectful, dignified and with plenty of smiles.