Background to this inspection
Updated
15 February 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection took place on 12 November 2015 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice that we could be coming, as the provider provides a domically care service and we wanted to ensure there would be people available for us to talk too.
One adult social care inspector undertook this inspection.
Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.
We were unable to observe care and support as people chose not to allow us to visit their homes. However we spoke to some people by telephone. We also spent time looking at records, including three care records, four staff files, medication administration record (MAR) sheets, staff training plans, complaints and other records relating to the management of the service. We contacted a social care professional who had involvement with the service to ask for their views.
On the day of our inspection we spoke with one member of staff. We also spoke to three relatives on the telephone. We spoke with the registered manager, the operations manager, and six other staff by telephone, and two people who use the service. Our opportunities to speak to people living in the home and staff were limited because the majority of them were engaged in activities or chose not to speak with us. We also spoke to a healthcare professional.
Updated
15 February 2016
We undertook an announced inspection of Rialto Care Services Limited Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) on 12 November 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available.
Rialto Care Services Limited is a small domiciliary care agency which provides support to adults in their own homes who have mental health issues, complex learning and/or physical difficulties, personality disorders and acquired brain injuries (ABI). At the time of our inspection Rialto Care was delivering services to eight people.
There was a registered manager 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.
Most people who use the service told us they felt safe when the staff were in their homes. Family members we spoke with also told us they had no concerns and felt that their relative was well looked after. However, one person gave us feedback which suggested staffing levels in their relative’s home were not always safe.
Most people we spoke with and family members had good relationships with their staff teams and felt supported well by consistent staff that knew them well and understood their routines.
Staff were receiving regular supervision and appraisal, and training was provided so staff were supported and equipped with the skills needed to do their jobs. New staff were provided with a detailed induction programme, which included training in essential subjects and subjects which were specific to the person they were supporting.
The agency had robust recruitment practices in place. Applicants were assessed as suitable for their job roles. No staff commenced duties until all satisfactory checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check had been received. DBS checks identify if prospective staff have had a criminal record or have been barred from working with children or vulnerable people.
People received their medications safely and on time.
People were initially assessed by the operations manager before being offered a support package and we could see this had taken place.
Other assessments identified people’s specific health and care needs, their mental health, medicines management, and any equipment needed. A care plan was drawn up and agreed between the agency and the individual people concerned. Some people were supported by their family members to discuss their care needs, if this was their choice to do so.
Staff we spoke with told us their rotas were fair and they were happy with them.
People’s capacity to consent had been assessed and they had consented to their care and support. The provider had acted in accordance with their legal responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Complaints had been logged and we could see that they had been investigated. People we spoke with told us they had never raised a complaint, and we could see that none had been raised in the last twelve months.
There were systems and processes in place to access the quality of service in the form of questionnaires sent out to people who use the service. The completed questionnaires had been analysed and the manager responded to these accordingly. We could also see other audits taking place on all records and documentation.