• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Pinkney Services Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

University of Chichester, Business Incubation Centre, Upper Bognor Road, Bognor Regis, West Sussex, PO21 1HR 07510 306013

Provided and run by:
Pinkney Services Limited

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

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

This inspection took place on 5 and 6 April 2018 and was announced.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to allow enough time for the provider to arrange for us to visit people in their own homes on the day of the inspection.

The inspection team consisted of an inspector.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We reviewed other information we held about the service. We considered the information which had been shared with us by the local authority and other people, looked at any safeguarding alerts which had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events the provider is required to tell us about by law. This is necessary so that, where needed, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) can take follow up action.

During the inspection, we visited three people in their homes to talk with them and observe their care. We spoke with two support workers, the manager, deputy manager and the registered manager. We spoke with two relatives of people who use the service on the telephone. We received feedback via email from a health professional who has worked with the service to deliver support to people.

We reviewed care records for seven people and ‘pathway tracked’ two of them to understand how their care was being delivered in line with this.

We reviewed staff training, supervision and recruitment records, medicines records, care plans, risk assessments, and accidents and incident records. We also reviewed complaints and compliments documents, quality audits, policies and procedures, staff rotas and other records related to the management of the service.

Overall inspection

Requires improvement

Updated 13 June 2018

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Pinkney Services Limited on 5 and 6 April 2018.

Pinkney Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency. The service provides support to adults and younger adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community and to people in supported living arrangements.

Supported living is where people receive support so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. Where the service does provide any wider social care, we also take this into account. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting seven people.

Pinkney Services Limited has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in December 2016.

Medicines were not always being safely managed. Recording of administration of people’s medicines was an area of practice that required improvement to make sure people were safe from the risk of avoidable harm. The service had not always supported people who received support to maintain a clean and hygienic home environment to manage and prevent risks of infection.

Following a period of temporary management cover while the registered manager had been absent, management of quality, risks, staff performance and regulatory requirements had not been always been effective. The service did not always consistently involve and engage with people, the public and staff to gain their views and input on how to develop the service.

The service had not submitted notifications of events that had occurred in line with CQC registration requirements, such as incidents involving the Police and allegations of abuse.

Quality assurance and information governance systems were not always effective. Quality and safety issues had not always been identified. Where these had been recognised, these had not always been acted on in a timely manner. There was no formal development plan in place to allow the service to continuously review, learn and improve the quality of its support.

The registered manager had a clear vision for the service to deliver high quality care that empowered people with learning disabilities and autism to be independent and achieve what they wanted from life. However, staff had not always had support to take account for their performance and know what was expected of them to fulfil their responsibilities. Staff did not always work collaboratively or effectively.

Management were not always seen as visible and approachable by staff. Some staff found the feedback from members of the management team had been inconsistent and was not always constructive. Some staff felt unsupported and not always confident information was shared with them in a timely and transparent manner.

People had been assessed for risks to their well-being. People were involved with making choices during their risk management processes and any restrictions on their freedom were kept to minimum. Some people’s risk assessments lacked details about control measures needed to minimise risks to them and risks to people were not always monitored and managed effectively.

Staff reported accidents and incidents if these occurred. However, the service could not always evidence they had taken appropriate action and supported staff to understand and prevent the risk of incidents happening again.

Staff received an induction and received training. Staff training requests were not always delivered in a timely manner. Formal supervisions, appraisals, team meetings, on-site observations and spot checks had not been taking place regularly. This increased the risk that staff practice might be inconsistent or they might not know how best to deliver effective support to people.

There were processes in place to help ensure safe recruitment, however some paperwork to evidence staff suitability was not present at the time of the inspection. There were effective systems and processes in place to keep people safe from abuse. People were protected from any discriminatory abuse they might encounter. There was enough staff and people received their expected support from the service.

The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People, or an appropriate person, had consented to their care. There were mental capacity assessments in place that recorded people’s ability to be able to make decisions about certain activities in their lives. Best interest meetings had been carried out to make sure people had received the correct support to make any decisions they were not able to.

People’s physical, psychological and social needs had been assessed before they started using the service. The service shared information with other relevant people such as family members and health and social care professionals to make sure people had consistency with receiving the support they wanted and needed.

People’s support decisions were always respected. One person said, “I tell them what I want to do and then we do it”. The registered manager was committed to providing a service where people with learning disabilities had support to lead as normal a life as any other person.

Staff supported people to monitor their well-being and access healthcare services. People had effective support with their eating and drinking, including any specific nutritional and dietary support needs.

People told us they thought staff were kind and listened to their views and made them feel that they mattered. People felt included and in control about decisions to do with their care. Staff communicated with people in ways they understood to remove barriers to people or staff understanding each other.

People were treated with compassion and empathy and encouraged to be as independent as possible in all areas of their support. People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected. Staff understood their responsibilities to maintain people’s confidentiality and could explain what these were. The service collected, stored and shared people’s information in line with the principles of the Data Protection Act.

People told us they received personalised care. A relative told us, “They understand him. I think he is in the best place that he has ever been”. A health professional said, “They are person centred in their working and approaches with the client I have been involved in”.

People contributed to the planning of their care and support. Other appropriate people, such as relatives and health and social care professionals, were also involved in this process. People’s care was regularly reviewed. The service responded quickly and made any necessary adjustments to people’s support if their needs changed.

Staff knew people well and used information from a number of sources to understand details about who a person was and how this influenced how they needed and wanted to be supported. This included knowing about people’s personal backgrounds, preferences, life history and aspirations. People also had care plans in place that contained information about people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs.

People were encouraged and supported to develop and maintain relationships with important people in their lives to help them avoid becoming socially isolated. People had support to follow their interests and take part in meaningful social activities and be part of their local communities.

The service provided information about care and support for people with a disability or sensory loss related communication need, in line with the principles of the Accessible Information Standards (AIS). People told us they knew how to and felt confident to raise a complaint. Any complaints that the service had been received were formally acknowledged and investigated in line with the provider’s policy.

The service valued staff well-being and promoted inclusion and respect for staff equality rights. For example, they had arranged for workplace adjustments to be made to accommodate staff members’ disabilities and dyslexia. The service worked in partnership with the local authority and health and social care professionals to share information and gain advice to help improve people’s care.

Full information about the Care Quality Commission’s regulatory response to more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.