You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 February 2018

We carried out an inspection of CRG Homecare – Burnley on 29 and 30 November 2017. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice to ensure that the registered manager would be available when we visited.

CRG Homecare – Burnley is a domiciliary care service. It provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to children, people with a physical disability, learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, people who misuse drugs or alcohol, people with an eating disorder, people with poor mental health, older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, the agency was also providing a reablement service, commissioned by the local authority. Reablement is a short term service designed to help people improve their independence while living at home, for example following a period in hospital or a change in their circumstances. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care and support to 89 adults and a further 163 adults were being supported through the reablement service. No children were being supported. This was our first inspection of the service.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager at the service who had been registered with the Commission since December 2016. 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.

During this inspection we found that the provider was meeting all regulations. We have made a recommendation about staffing arrangements at the service.

The people we spoke with told us staff usually arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of the visit. However, a number of complaints and safeguarding alerts had been raised regarding people receiving reablement support. These related to missed visits, only one staff member attending when people needed two staff to meet their needs and people being dissatisfied with the standard of care they had received. We saw evidence that these complaints and safeguarding alerts had been investigated and the provider was taking action to address these issues.

During our inspection people told us they felt safe when staff supported them. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard adults at risk and were aware of the appropriate action to take if abusive practice was taking place.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and had received an appropriate induction. They received regular supervision and their practice was observed to ensure they were providing safe care. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager.

We found that people’s medicines were being managed safely and people told us they received their medicines when they should. Staff members’ competence to administer medicines safely was assessed regularly.

People were supported with their healthcare needs and were referred to community healthcare professionals when appropriate.

People were happy with the care and support they received from the service. They told us their care needs were discussed with them and they were involved in decisions about their care.

People liked the staff who supported them and told us they were caring. They told us staff respected their right to privacy and dignity when providing care and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

We found that people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff understood the main principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They sought people’s consent before providing support and supported people to make everyday decisions about their care. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 1 February 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

A number of people receiving the reablement service had experienced missed visits and there were occasions when one staff member had visited people when two staff were needed to meet their needs. We found evidence that the provider was taking action to address these issues.

The manager followed safe recruitment practices when employing new staff.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of the action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Risks to people�s health and wellbeing were assessed and reviewed regularly. We saw evidence that people�s risks were being managed appropriately.

There were safe medicines policies and practices in place. People told us they received their medicines when they should.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 February 2018

The service was effective.

New staff received an appropriate induction and observed experienced staff before they became responsible for providing people�s care.

People�s care plans were detailed and individualised. Care plans included information about people�s preferences as well as their needs.

Staff understood the importance of seeking people�s consent and supporting people to make decisions about their care. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions, their relatives had been consulted.

Staff supported people with their nutrition, hydration and healthcare needs and referred people to community healthcare agencies when appropriate.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 February 2018

The service was caring.

People were given information about the service when they started receiving care. This included a service user guide which was available in a variety of formats.

People told us their care needs had been discussed with them and they were involved in decisions about their care.

People told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity and did not rush them when providing care. They told us staff encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care which reflected their needs and their preferences. Their needs were reviewed regularly.

People received support from regular staff who were familiar with their needs and preferences.

People felt able to raise concerns with the staff or the registered manager. We found evidence that complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 February 2018

The service was well-led.

People were asked to give feedback about the care and support they received during reviews and telephone surveys. People reported a high level of satisfaction with the service.

People being supported by the service were happy with the way the service was being managed.

Staff felt that the service was managed well and felt supported by the registered manager. They felt fairly treated as employees.

Regular audits of the service were completed and were effective in ensuring that appropriate standards of care and safety were being maintained.