You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 May 2017

This inspection was carried out on 27 and 28 April 2017 and was announced. This was the service's first inspection since registering with the Care Quality Commission in October 2016.

Head Office [Care 121 Services Ltd] provides personal care for people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection five people were receiving a service from them.

The service did not have a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). At the time of the inspection the previous manager had left and a new manager was in the process of registering. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Prior to this inspection we had received information that suggested people were at risk of harm. When we inspected Head Office we found no evidence to support these concerns, however we found that further development was required in areas relating to management of the service.

People told us they felt safe and their individual risks were assessed and managed. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs who had undergone rigorous employment checks prior to working in the service. People who required their medicines to be administered to them received these as the prescriber intended.

People were supported by staff who had received appropriate supervision and day to day support from the management team. People’s consent was sought before care was offered and the staff were familiar with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy diet and health professionals were contacted on people’s behalf if needed.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Their confidentiality was promoted and records were held securely.

People received personalised care that met their needs and there was effective communication within the service to help ensure staff had up to date information. People were supported with interests important to them and staff amended their social interaction with people based on their individual needs. There had been no complaints to review but people knew who to speak with if they had a complaint.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service however these at the time of inspection had not been effectively utilised. These were being developed further to support an increase in people who used the service when needed. People’s care records lacked detail about the person, and were not updated when people’s needs changed. People knew the manager and told us they felt the service was well run. Staff were very positive about the new manager and management team.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 May 2017

The service was safe.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited following a robust process.

People told us they felt safe with the care provided by staff who had been trained to identify potential areas of abuse or harm and respond accordingly.

Risks to people's safety and welfare were managed safely by staff, but not always clearly documented.

People received their medicines as the prescriber intended, but records relating to medicines management required updating.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 May 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were supported by the manager.

People’s consent was sought before care was offered.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.

People were referred to various health professionals where needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 May 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

Confidentiality was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that met their needs.

Staff were aware of how to meet peoples preferences and shared effective communication regarding peoples needs between them.

People were supported with individual interests and social interaction.

There had been no complaints received but people knew who to speak with if they had a complaint.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 27 May 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

The service did not have a registered manager in post.

Further development was needed to ensure peoples records were continually updated as their needs were identified.

Systems in place to monitor the quality of the service were being developed.

People and relatives told us they felt the service was well managed and communicated with them positively.

Staff and people were positive about the provider and management team. .