You are here

CRG Homecare - Leicestershire Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 10 October 2018

We inspected this service announced on 10 July 2018.

CRG Homecare – Leicestershire is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older and younger adults some of whom are living with dementia, physical disabilities, sensory impairments, and mental health issues. At the time of our inspection there were 201 people receiving care and support from the service.

At our last inspection of this service on 27 September 2017 we found three breaches of the regulations because the service was not always safe, responsive, and well-led. We issued a three requirement notices. At this inspection we found that two of these requirements had been met but the service was still not fully compliant with one of our regulations.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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. The last registered manager had de-registered on 08 February 2018. At the time of our inspection a new acting manager had been appointed and was in the process of applying to register with CQC.

We found a continued breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations Safe care and treatment. Although improvements had been made to some care plans and risk assessments others were not in place where necessary, or did not contain the information care workers needed to provide safe care and support.

The timeliness of calls had improved since our last inspection and most people and relatives said their calls were now on time. People felt safe using the service. Medicines were better managed and administered safely. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. The management of complaints had also improved and people and relatives told us they would speak out if they had any concerns about the quality of their care.

People and relatives told us the care workers treated people with kindness and compassion. They said they were flexible and went out of their way to support people in the way they wanted. People mostly had regular care workers so they could get to know them. The care workers we spoke with were caring and committed to providing good quality care. They understood the importance of supporting people to express their views about the type of care and support they wanted.

Care workers were mostly well-trained and experienced. They supported some people using the service to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. If people needed medical attention care workers alerted their families and healthcare professionals. Care workers sought people’s consent before providing any care or support and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received responsive care that met their needs. People and relatives made many positive comments about the quality of the care provided. Most of the care plans we saw were personalised and written from the perspective of the person using the service. The management team were in the process of reviewing and improving all care plans to ensure they were of good quality and based on best practice guidance.

Records showed that any complaints received were recorded along with the action taken to resolve them and the outcome. The provider had amended and updated the service’s complaints procedure. People and relatives were confident that if they raised a concern they would be listened to and action taken to resolve any issues they might have.

The provider had developed a quality assurance system and carried out a series of audits to identify any shortfalls in the service. They were working to an improvement plan

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Improvements were needed to the way risks to people were assessed.

Medicines were mostly managed safely.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from abuse and report any concerns about their well-being

The premises were clean and hygienic.

Lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was not consistently effective.

People's needs were assessed and met by care workers who were skilled and had completed the training they needed to provide effective care.

The culture of the service was open to providing care that met people's needs without the fear of discrimination.

People were mostly supported to maintain their health and well-being, and, where required, with their meals and drinks.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was caring.

Care workers were kind, caring and compassionate.

People mostly had regular care workers and had the opportunity to build good relationships with them.

Care workers supported people to be independent and to make choices. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that met their needs.

People had access to the information they needed in a way they could understand it.

A complaints policy was in place and information readily available to raise concerns. People knew how to complain if they needed to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was not consistently well-led

Comprehensive audits were being completed regularly at the service to review the quality of care provided but some shortfalls had yet to be addressed.

There was clear leadership and management of the service which ensured staff received the support, knowledge and skills they needed to provide good care.

Feedback from people was used to drive improvements and develop the service.