You are here

Routes Healthcare Burnley Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Routes Health Care Burnley on 26 October 2018. This inspection was prompted by an incident which had an impact on a person using the service. This matter is subject to an investigation by another agency but indicated the potential for concerns about the management of risk in the service. The team inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services; is the service safe and is the service well led.

No risks or concerns were identified in the remaining key questions through our ongoing monitoring or during our inspection activity so we did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these key questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provided personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provided a service to people who were considered to be at the end of their life.

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.

All the staff we spoke with confirmed they had received safeguarding training and that safeguarding policies and procedures were in place to guide them in their roles. Training records we looked at showed that safeguarding adults was an annual, mandatory course [a course the provider had deemed necessary as part of people’s roles]. Other safeguarding records we looked at showed the registered manager had notified the appropriate authorities when a safeguarding concern had been raised.

The service had a recruitment policy in place to guide the manager on safe recruitment processes. We looked at four staff personnel files. There was excellent evidence of records to demonstrate adequate checks had been undertaken prior to making a decision to employ people.

Records we looked at also showed that continuous checks of staff competence and suitability was monitored through spot checks, direct observations, supervisions and appraisals. This meant the registered manager and provider were able to ensure any concerns or gaps in knowledge were addressed to ensure staff remained suitable and competent.

We saw where concerns or complaints had been highlighted about the conduct of any staff member, the registered manager and provider had acted accordingly through robust disciplinary procedures.

We looked at how risks to people’s individual safety and well-being were assessed and managed. Care records contained risk assessments in relation to areas such as pressure ulcers, skin integrity, medicines and moving and handling.

Some people who used the service required equipment such as hoists to assist them to move. All the staff we spoke with told us they had received moving and handling training and this was in a classroom so they could practice using the equipment. Whilst the service was not responsible for the maintenance of any equipment, staff knew to report any faults or safety issues to external agencies.

We noted records were kept in relation to any accidents or incidents that had occurred at the service, including falls. All accident and incident records were checked and investigated where necessary by the registered manager.

All the staff we spoke with, told us they had received training and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to infection control. The service had an infection control policy to guide staff in their roles and to reduce the risk of cross infection.

We asked the quality manager how they shared any lessons learnt. The service was open and transparent about lessons learnt. The quality manager told us all lessons learnt were discussed at

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was safe.

We reviewed how people were protected from abuse, neglect and discrimination. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew their responsibilities to report any concerns. The registered manager had dealt with any safeguarding concerns and informed the necessary authorities.

The service had robust recruitment systems and procedures in place. We saw excellent evidence of recruitment records to show staff had been safely recruited, in line with policies and procedures. Records we looked at also showed that continuous checks of staff competence and suitability was monitored through spot checks, direct observations, supervisions and appraisals.

The service were open and transparent about lessons learnt when incidents/concerns/complaints had been raised. Records showed what had changed as a result of lessons learnt and all were discussed at board level so there was oversight of the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

Caring

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was well led.

The service promoted a clear vision and approach, to deliver high-quality care and support which achieved positive outcomes for people.

The service had good incentives for staff members which promoted staff retention. One staff member had been made an �excellence in care trainer� as a result of their role model way of working with people.

We noticed throughout our inspection there was a �no blame� culture, which supported and promoted everyone to be transparent and open to ensure improvements were made. There was an emphasis on improving the service for the benefit of people using it.