The Care Quality Commission

Archived: Quality Healthcare Services Ltd

Suite 32, Basepoint Business Centre, Crab Apple Way, Vale Park, Evesham, Worcestershire, WR11 1GP (01386) 764729

Provided and run by:
Quality Health Care Services Limited

All Inspections

15 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected this agency in July 2012. The inspection in July 2012 found that the provider was not meeting the essential standards relating to respecting and involving people, care and welfare, safeguarding people, staff training and monitoring the quality of their service. This follow up inspection took place to see what improvements had been made since July 2012.

A new manager had been appointed by the provider and started work at the agency in August 2012. The manager submitted an application to the commission and was registered in September 2012.

We found that improvements had been made in all of these areas. People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support that they received. People told us the staff were, 'Friendly and polite and willing to do anything'. We found that proper steps had been taken to ensure that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Care support plans had been reviewed and updated following consultation with people and provided more detail about people's individual needs.

Staff received the training and support needed to ensure people received appropriate care.

The registered manager had put robust systems of audit in place to enable them to monitor the quality of the service provided.

11 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We inspected the agency office and spoke on the telephone with people who used the agency or their relatives. We found that people or their relatives were not being provided with appropriate information and support in relation to their individual care.

We found that people's wishes and preferences were recorded in their plan of care, although people's preferences were not always being promoted and provided. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity when they assisted them with personal care.

We talked with several people about their experience of the care and service they received from the agency. People told us that they were satisfied with the care they received. One person said 'I am happy with the care'. Another person said 'sometimes I wonder why they don't stay so long, they used to stay for half an hour but not now'. People's relatives said the staff 'have been wonderful, I can't fault them' and they were 'very good, X (person's name) never complains'. However, other evidence did not support this. We found that people were not receiving care, support and treatment that met their individual needs.

We found that people who used the agency were not protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to prevent abuse from happening.

We found that people were being cared for by some staff that were not fully trained and supported by the provider to deliver care and treatment to an appropriate standard.

We found that the provider had no effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.