You are here

CCK Support Ltd Requires improvement

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 8 December 2018

CCK Support Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. At the time of the inspection the service was providing care for 18 older people including people with physical disabilities, mental health problems and people living with dementia. The service was provided in Canterbury, Whitstable, Herne Bay and surrounding areas.

Not everyone using CCK Support Ltd receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service was run by two registered managers, both of whom were present at the inspection visit to the office. 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 last inspection on 20 and 22 September 2017, the overall rating of the service was ‘Requires Improvement. We found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and one breach of the Registration Regulations 2009. People could not be assured they would be protected from abuse; medicines were not well managed; care plans were not always personalised; some records were not accurate; and the quality of the service was not checked to make sure risks to people were minimised. Furthermore, the provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission of all events and incidents as required.

We asked the provider to send us a plan setting out the actions that they would take to meet these legal requirements. The provider returned the action plan within the agreed timescale and told us they would meet all breaches of regulations by 30 January 2018.

At this inspection on 5 and 7 November 2018, we found that the provider had made improvements in protecting people from abuse, medicines, care planning, managing risk, record keeping and informing us of important events. However, the provider continued to have ineffective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. We also found an addition breach of regulation in that not all staff that supported people with equipment had received training in how to do so safely.

This is the second time the service has been rated as RI.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.

People and relatives told us they trusted staff and felt safe. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people and knew how to follow the service’s safeguarding protocols keep people safe.

Assessments of potential risks in the environment and with regards to people’s health and welfare had been carried out. Guidance and strategies had been developed which staff followed to protect people from avoidable harm. Accidents and incidents were monitored to see if there were any trends or if lessons could be learned.

Improvements had been made to the management of medicines. Staff had received training in how to give people their medicines and knew how to follow the service’s medicines policy. Medicines were audited and investigations took place to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.

Suitable recruitment checks were in place for new staff. People had their needs met by regular staff who were available in sufficient numbers.

Improvements had been made to the frequency that staff received formal supervision. Staff were supported by a management team that listened and responded to their views.

People’s health and nutritional needs were monitored. Referrals were made to health care professionals and their advice was acted on. People were encouraged to eat and drink to maintain good heal

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The service had improved so that it was safe.

Changes had been made so people’s medicines were managed safely.

Risks associated with people's care had been identified and there was guidance for staff to follow to help keep people safe.

People told us they felt safe. Staff and the management team knew how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.

Suitable checks were carried out before new staff supported people.

People's needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff and

regular staff provided people's care and support.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 8 December 2018

The service was not consistently effective.

Staff who assisted people to move had not all received training or had their competence assessed to make sure they knew how to use the equipment safely.

Improvements had been made so that staff received supervision and felt well supported by the management team.

People's mental capacity had been assessed and staff supported people in line with this guidance.

People were supported to eat and drink to maintain a healthy diet.

The service worked with health care professionals to make sure people received the support they needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The service was caring.

People benefitted from being supported by staff who were kind and caring and treated them with dignity.

People were involved in their care and their independence was promoted.

Staff knew people well and supported them with their physical and emotional needs.

People's records were securely stored.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The service had improved so that it was responsive.

People's needs were assessed before they started to use the service.

Care plans had improved so that they contained information about peoples likes, dislikes and preferences.

People and relatives felt confident to raise any concerns with the provider and that they would be acted on.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 December 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

The registered managers had not identified the shortfalls found at this inspection. The audits in place had not ensured that the quality of service was checked to assess the care being provided.

Feedback was sought from people, staff and stakeholders to give them an opportunity to voice their opinions to improve the service.

Everyone told us the service was well managed and there was an open positive culture.