You are here

Archived: Heathley Care Services Limited Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 18 January 2018

This was the first inspection of the service. The inspection visit was on 14 November 2017.

Heathley Care Services provides personal care and treatment for people living in their own homes. On the day of the inspection the registered manager informed us that there were a total of seven7 people receiving personal care from the service.

We found breaches of regulations in this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff recruitment checks had not always been completed to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff. Risk assessments were not always in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare.

Management had not carried out comprehensive audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service.

A registered manager was in place at the time of the inspection visit. 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 did not report that they had any issues about staff infection control practices. Staff had been trained in infection control procedures to ensure their safety from infection.

People and relatives we spoke with told us they thought the service ensured that people received safe personal care from staff. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area. Staffing numbers were sufficient to ensure that people received calls supplying personal care to them.

We saw that medicines had been supplied safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs.

Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs, however, though more training was needed on people’s individual health conditions. People’s needs had been assessed so that staff could supply personal care to meet their individual needs. The service worked with other agencies to deliver effective care to people.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff were aware to ask people’s consent when they provided personal care.

People and relatives we spoke with all told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. People told us they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet any identified needs.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service. This helped to ensure that their needs were met.

People and relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns, and they were confident these would be properly followed up.

They were satisfied with how the service was run.

Staff said they had been fully supported in their work by the registered manager.

Policies set out that when a safeguarding incident occurred management needed to take appropriate action by referring to the relevant safeguarding agency. The registered manager was aware that these incidents, if they occurred, needed to be reported to The Care Quality Commission (CQC) us, as legally required.

This is the first time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 18 January 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Staff recruitment checks were not robustly in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff. Risk assessments to protect people's health and welfare were not always in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare.

People and their relatives thought that staff provided safe care, including protecting them from infection, and that people felt safe with staff from the service. There was enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines had been supplied as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 January 2018

The service was effective.

People and relatives thought that staff had been trained to meet the assessed needs. Staff had received, in the main, support to carry out their role of providing effective care to meet people's needs, however additional training was needed to comprehensively cover all care needs. People's consent to care and treatment was sought. People's nutritional needs had been promoted and people�s health needs had been met by staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 January 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us that staff were kind, friendly, and caring and respected people�s rights. People and their relatives had been involved in setting up care plans that reflected people's needs. Staff respected people's choices, privacy, independence and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Call times had, in the main, been on time to respond to people's needs. People and their relatives had been satisfied that staff provided a service that met people�s needs. Care plans contained information on how staff should respond to people's assessed needs. People and their relatives were confident that the service would act on any complaints they made. The complaints procedure did not include comprehensive information to help people to take their complaints further if they needed to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 18 January 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

Services had not been comprehensively audited in order to measure whether a quality service had been provided and to take action where needed.