We carried out a review of the data available to us about Comfort Call - Kirklees on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Comfort Call - Kirklees, you can give feedback on this service.
Comfort Call – Kirklees is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. On the day of our inspection 138 people were receiving care and support. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Improvements had been made since the last inspection. People felt the service was now more responsive and staff support offered better continuity in care. People and their relatives were happy with the care and support received from staff. People said staff knew them well and were kind and compassionate.
Staff too acknowledged the improvements made and felt the management team were approachable and supportive. They were confident any matters brought to their attention would be dealt with.
The provider had maintained safe and effective systems in relation to staff recruitment, training and support, safeguarding procedures, safe administration of medication and health and safety. The implementation of electronic systems provided better management and oversight of the service. Any accidents and incidents and complaints were quickly responded to. Areas of learning, so further improvements could be made, were shared with the team.
People's care and support needs were assessed prior to them using the service to ensure their needs could be met. Personalised records were available to guide staff in the care people wanted and needed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported at mealtimes in line with their support plan and staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals, when needed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 15 February 2019).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. On the day of our inspection 150 people were receiving care and support from Comfort Call – Kirklees.
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.
At the time of the inspection Comfort Call – Kirklees were in the process of reviewing call times and staff rotas. People told us they did not always feel safe. They did not always know when staff would arrive or which care worker would be delivering their care and support.
We found the recruitment of staff was safe. Neither people or staff felt the service was understaffed.
Staff received training and an assessment of their competency to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to administer people’s medicines.
The prevention and control of infection protected people.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
New staff completed a programme of induction to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to deliver effective care and support. There was an on-going programme of training and support for all staff.
People received appropriate support to enable them to eat and drink.
Staff supported peoples to access other healthcare professionals if they were unwell.
People told us staff were predominantly kind and caring although staff were limited by constraints on their time. Staff we spoke with talked about the people they supported with empathy and professionalism.
People’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality was respected.
People had a care plan in place which was person centred and reflective if their care and support needs. Care records were reviewed at regular intervals.
There was a system in place to manage complaints. We saw evidence complaints were handled appropriately. We have made a recommendation about the method used to gain feedback from people who use the service.
An annual survey conducted in May 2018, evidenced some key areas of concern. Despite an action plan being implemented the feedback we received as part of this inspection evidenced the issues had not been fully addressed.
The registered provider had a number of audits in place to monitor the service and to ensure staff were meeting the requirements of their role. An operations manager visited the service on a regular basis to provide support to the registered manager and office based staff.
People received a regular newsletter providing them with information and regular meetings were held with staff.
This is the second consecutive time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.
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.
Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedures and felt confident appropriate action would be taken in the event of a concern being raised. Risk assessments were in place and action was being taken by the registered manager to improve the level of detail in these documents where staff needed to use a hoist to transfer people.
There were systems in pace to reduce the risk of employing staff who may not be suitable to work with vulnerable people. A number of people we spoke with told us staff arrived late and they did not have a consist team of staff visiting them. The registered manager had taken action where shortfalls were due to staff error an electronic call monitoring system was to be introduced.
Staff received training in medicine management but we were unable to evidence an assessment of staffs competency to administer medicines had been recently completed in two of the four staff files we reviewed.
People felt staff had the skills to do their job. New employees received an induction which included face to face training and shadowing a more experienced staff member. There was a rolling programme of refresher training, management supervision and observational assessments to ensure staff had the knowledge and ability to fulfil their role.
People received support to eat and drink where this was an identified need. Peoples care plans recorded the support they needed from staff.
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 supported this practice. However, the service needs to ensure, where people lack capacity to make specific decisions, this is clearly evidenced including the process of making decisions in their best interests.
Everyone we spoke with told us staff were caring and kind. Staff treated them with respect and took steps to maintain their privacy. Staff were able to tell us about the actions they took to maintain people’s dignity and ensure people’s private information was kept confidential.
People had a care plan in place which was person centred and provided sufficient detail to enable staff to provide the care and support required by each individual. Staff made a record of the care they provided and these records were returned to the office in a timely manner.
There was a system in place to manage complaints.
There were systems in place to continually monitor the service, for example, the registered provider had an online management reporting system and audits were completed on people’s daily logs and medicines records. Staff felt supported and regular meetings were held to seek feedback and share information. Feedback regarding the service was also gained at regular intervals from people who used the service. However, these systems had not identified or actioned the shortfalls identified within this report.