You are here

Archived: Able Carers

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 23 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? We also wanted to check that the provider had taken action to improve two areas that we found non-compliant at our last inspection of the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People felt safe because their rights and dignity were respected and they were involved and included in decisions about their care.

The risk of harm to people was appropriately managed as the provider had effective risk management processes in place.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed and the service had policies for staff to follow when people did not want their medication or needed extra help to take it.

Is the service effective?

People were encouraged and helped to comment on the service and how it was operating. Regular checks were completed to ensure people were still receiving the care and support that they wanted.

Is the service caring?

People said they were supported by kind, friendly staff who respected their rights and promoted their dignity. Staff showed concern for people�s wellbeing. People told us �The staff are lovely.� And �I�m highly satisfied. I look forward to their (support workers) visits.�

People were included in decisions about their care and support needs. Support staff checked that people wanted the planned support, before providing this.

Is the service responsive?

People were supported to express their views about the service and the care they receive. People were listened to when they talked about the care they were wanting.

People were encouraged and supported to raise any concerns about the service. Staff regularly checked with people that they knew about the complaints process and what they had to do if they were unhappy about any aspect of their care.

Is the service well-led?

The service had systems in place to ensure people were consulted about their care and staff felt supported and included in decisions about how the service was operating. Support workers said senior staff were supportive and available for them.

Inspection carried out on 14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service and all provided positive comments about the care delivery and the staff who visited them. Their comments included �I don�t have to ask them to do things for me. They just know,� and �The general care is excellent. The staff are respectful and calm. The agency is good at keeping in touch with me to keep me updated about my relative.�

Despite these positive comments we found some underpinning systems needed improving, both to demonstrate the service was running well and to minimise the risk of harm to people using the service.

Whilst people said their consent to care was being routinely sought by care workers the service could not evidence that this was happening.

People received safe, appropriate care that was in line with the support they were wanting.

Medication systems were not well managed. People may not be getting their medications safely and appropriately, which meant their health and well-being was being put at risk of harm.

Although recruitment processes overall were robust, there could be better records to evidence why some decisions had been made.

The service had a complaints process that was discussed with people however; there was no system in place to check that people remembered this process.

Whilst care staff knew people�s care needs the records relating to people�s care were not accurate or up to date, which meant people were at greater risk of receiving the wrong, or unsafe care.

Inspection carried out on 10 October 2012

During a routine inspection

York Homecare provides personal care and support to a very small number of people.

We spoke with those people who told us the service was reliable and provided care and support in line with what they were wanting. One person said �On the odd occasion our carer is delayed because of traffic she always telephones us to say she�ll be late.� Other comments included �We�re getting the care we want.� And �The care workers are very good. They�re very polite and respectful.�

Staff who worked for the service understood their roles with regard to protecting people from harm, because the provider ensured that care staff were properly trained and supported.

The service provided very person-centred care. This meant that care was very flexible and focussed on what people wanted.

Care workers told us they felt well supported in their work. This meant they were given appropriate training and they had the opportunity to discuss their work with a more senior person.

The service had introduced systems so that they could get the views of the people using it. This gave people the opportunity to say whether or not the service was running well.