You are here

Archived: True Care

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 September 2011
Date of Publication: 6 October 2011
Inspection Report published 6 October 2011 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People have an ongoing assessment of their needs, which focussed on their health, wellbeing and independence. Feedback indicates that people’s needs are being met but insufficient information within care plans does not always support this good practice.

Overall, we found that Truecare was meeting this essential standard but to maintain this we have suggested that some improvements are made.

User experience

We spoke with three people or their representatives about the care they were receiving. One person summed up the various comments received by saying “they have been marvellous and would do anything for me.” Another person explained that staff assisted them with their medication and kept daily records.

One person’s supporter told us that their relative received care from regular agency care staff. They commented that if different carers did call the agency would let them know and that the new care staff always introduced themselves.

One relative told us how agency staff were sensitive and professional when supporting family member. They added that staff always showed patience and understanding.

Other evidence

One staff member explained the care they provided to people. We looked at four people’s support plans. We saw that the plans were individual and the content varied according to the amount of support a person required. We noted that one care plan was very detailed, ensuring that care staff knew exactly how to support the person with their daily routines and the use of equipment and mobility aids. However, there was insufficient information relating to the person’s medical condition. Another plan lacked detail on how the person’s diabetes was to be managed and by whom.

We saw that daily records were kept in the person’s home for one month. They were then returned to the office to be archived. The manager said that they would take a random sample of records to check. However, there was no evidence to show that records had been regularly audited.

Risk assessments were completed and kept under review. They included assessments for manual handling, medication and the environment.

We discussed with the manager how the agency supported people with needs relating to their culture or diversity. She told us how they ensured that one person with a sensory impairment was always contacted by telephone to inform them of any changes of carer. They told us how they supported a person whose first language was not English, by involving a relative.

The manager told us that the agency had a very good relationship with the Community Matron in Trowbridge Hospital, whom she could ring for advice and support, if needed. We talked about other support networks provided by external agencies. The manager gave an example of when a specific piece of equipment was to be used and no one at the agency had previous knowledge of using this. The manager said that she arranged for the paramedics to attend and provide the care staff with training. Care plans record that “staff should not be using equipment that they have not been trained in using”. The manager is a registered nurse and is qualified to provide training in most areas to the care staff. She told us that if there was an area where she felt that she needed to update her skills she would ensure that she contacted the appropriate person to deliver the current training.