Archived: Vericare HQ

Eleven people received personal care packages from the service on the day of our inspection. Additional people received support that did not involve personal care provision for example, house cleaning and shopping. With their relative's permission, we visited one person in their own home, to determine their experience of the care provided. We also spoke with nine people or their relatives by telephone. We met and spoke with six staff.

We carried out this inspection so that we could answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Is the service safe?

We found that some improvement was needed regarding care planning and risk assessment processes.

People who used the service told us they felt safe. One person said, 'The staff are all very kind and have not done anything I do not like'.

We found that the recruitment of staff was undertaken in a way that prevented unsuitable staff being employed and therefore reduced the risk of harm and abuse to people who used the service.

Staff we spoke with knew about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) processes. DoLS is a legal framework that may need to be applied to people in care settings who lack capacity and may need to be deprived of their liberty in their own best interests to protect them from harm and/or injury. No applications regarding DoLS had been submitted by the service. Staff we spoke with were able to explain the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Overall, we found that the provider had processes and systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in relation to keeping people safe.

Is the service effective?

We found that greater diligence was needed regarding the auditing of care plans and risk assessments to ensure the service people received was effective.

We identified that the ongoing shortfalls in care staff numbers and the difficulties the provider had experienced regarding staff recruitment had a negative impact on the service provided. One person said, 'They need to get more staff'.

Overall, we found that the provider did not have adequate processes and systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring that the service was effective.

Is the service caring?

All of the people and their relatives we spoke with told us that staff were polite and showed respect.

We observed staff caring for a person in a kind considerate manner. The people we spoke with told us staff generally supported them in the way that they wanted to be cared for and supported. People told us that the majority of staff were, 'Kind', and, 'Good'. One relative said, 'I cannot fault the care staff at all they are wonderful'.

We found that people were supported to live their lives as independently as possible. Staff supported people to retain their daily living skills.

Overall the provider had adequate systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in ensuring the service was caring.

Is the service responsive?

The provider had a system in place so people could share any comments they had about the service. People told us they were able to share their views.

We found from our previous inspection that although the provider had made some improvements further improvement was needed to meet the regulations.

The provider was in breach of the law as they did not have a registered manager. We had discussed this with the provider previously and at the time of our inspection no manager application had been made.

Some people told us that they did not have confidence that management would action their requests. We found that some systems in place to monitor the quality of service delivery were very 'ad-hoc'. For example, staff spot checks had been started then stopped and then started again. This did not show consistency in monitoring.

Overall the provider did not have adequate systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in ensuring the service was responsive.

Is the service well-led?

People we spoke with knew how to raise any concerns they had about the service. The provider had a complaints process in place so people would know how to raise concerns.

A number of people and their relatives raised concerns about the management. One person said, 'They do not listen'. A relative told us that the management could be better.

Overall the provider did not have adequate systems in place to meet the requirements of the law in ensuring the service was well-led.

Although some relatives raised a few issues, the majority of people and their relatives we spoke with were generally complimentary about both the service that they received and the staff. One person told us "I am very happy with the staff and the service provided. Another person said 'I have no complaints at all. I am really pleased with the service.' One relative said, 'They have never had care before. I was really worried. However, we are really pleased with the service that has been provided'. Another relative said, 'We went to this agency as they had been recommended. We are happy with the care and the staff'.

People told us that the staff treated them with respect and dignity. All people we spoke with told us that choices were offered and their views had been taken into consideration.

People's needs had been assessed and a care plan had been developed which generally reflected their individual needs and wishes. The majority of people we spoke with were very happy with the care that they received.

We found that improvements for the safe recruitment of staff were needed to fully ensure that people using the service were protected from being cared for by unsuitable staff.

We found that improvements were needed to ensure that staff were supported and to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people using the service. We also found that travelling time to and from calls allocated to staff was not adequate. This increased staff stress and at times prevented them carrying out their care calls at the time people preferred.

We saw that the registered provider had some processes in place to monitor the service being provided. However, we found that improvements were needed to make sure that the service was being operated in the best interests of those who used it.

People told us that choices were offered and their views had been taken into consideration. They also told us that their privacy and dignity was promoted and maintained.

People had been assessed and care plans had been produced to highlight the support that they needed and any risks that staff needed to be aware of. This meant that staff had enabled people to have their needs monitored and met.

Staff gave a good account of what they would do if they were concerned about anything or witnessed abuse.

Recruitment processes were not adequately robust to give confidence that checking process had been completed before staff started to provide care to the people using this service.

We found that systems had been used to monitor how the service had been run and people had been encouraged to raise concerns.