You are here

Alliance Living Care - Weston-Super-Mare & Worle Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 February 2018

We undertook an inspection of Alliance Living Care – Weston Super Mare on 19 and 21 December 2017. The inspection was announced, which meant that the provider knew we would be visiting. This is because we wanted to ensure that the provider, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to support the inspection. The service registered to provide a regulated activity with the Care Quality Commission in June 2014. This was the service’s first inspection since registering and had not been previously rated.

Alliance Living Care – Weston Super Mare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older people. Not everyone using Alliance Living Care receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; for example help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of our inspection there were 227 people receiving personal care and support from the service.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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 service was not consistently safe as medicines records were not always sufficiently detailed. Audits were not fully effective in monitoring and improving the quality of the service provided. For example, medicines and care and support audits were not in place to monitor the service effectivity.

The provider was not always ensuring safe staff recruitment procedures were in place when new staff were introduced through the ‘Care Academy’. Staff were not always following the provider’s dress code policy as some staff had painted nails that can impede hand washing.

People felt safe and were supported by staff who were able to identify abuse and knew who to go to should they have concerns. Risk assessments identified concerns, however guidelines were not always in place where staff supported people with daily exercises.

Staff had access to personal protective equipment and an ID badge, alarm, torch and ruck sack to keep items safe.

People were not always supported by staff who had received training to ensure they were competent in their role.

Where people lacked capacity, the provider was not always ensuring the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being followed.

Staff received an induction and regular supervision and people were supported by staff with their nutrition and hydration.

People felt supported by staff who were kind and caring and staff demonstrated a good understanding of equality and diversity.

People felt respected and confirmed they felt they had choice in their care.

People felt able to complain, and where complaints had been raised records confirmed actions taken. Care plans were person centred and reviewed every six months.

Staff felt the provider and management were supportive and accessible and they had regular staff meetings. Newsletters were an opportunity to share updates with staff and customers about feedback and new initiatives.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was not always consistently safe.

People’s medicines were not always managed safely and staff were not always adhering to the provider’s dress code policy.

People felt safe and they received their care when required.

People were supported by staff who were able to identify abuse and knew how to report safeguarding concerns.

Risks to people and the environment were identified and assessed, although guidelines were required for daily exercises staff supported people with.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was not always effective.

People were not always supported by staff who had received training to ensure they were competent in their role.

The provider was not always ensuring the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being followed.

Staff received an induction and regular supervision.

People were supported by staff when they experienced changes with their health needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and who promoted people’s independence.

People were supported by staff who respected people’s dignity and choice.

People were supported by staff who demonstrated an understanding of equality and diversity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People felt able to complain, and where complaints had been raised records confirmed actions taken.

People received support from staff that was personalised and care plans confirmed people’s individual’s needs and preferences.

People received their care as planned and felt able to discuss any changes in care staff with the management of the agency.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 February 2018

The service was not always well-led.

Audits were not always effective in monitoring and improving the quality of the service provided.

Staff felt supported by the management and the provider was positive to work for.

Feedback from people and staff was sought and newsletters were an opportunity to share updates relating to feedback and new initiatives.

Staff received regular supervisions and notifications were being made as required.