We carried out a review of the data available to us about Anderby Care Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Anderby Care Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Anderby Care Ltd provides care and support for people living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 63 people with their personal care needs.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they were very happy with the support they received. The provider had made improvements to ensure staff were recruited safely, and to ensure staff received the training and support they needed to fulfil their roles and responsibilities.
People were protected from abuse and any risks associated with people’s care were well managed. Staff used gloves and aprons when these were needed to protect people from the risk of infection, and people's medicines were managed safely.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Care staff were familiar with people's preferences and needs. They were committed to promoting people's privacy, dignity and independence and supporting them to make choices. People who used the service spoke positively about the staffs’ caring approach.
The provider had made improvements to the audit tools used to monitor the safety and quality of service delivery and staff performance. They had ensured the improvements were well embedded into practice and were used effectively to drive improvements to the service people received. People and their relatives were asked for their views about the care and support the service offered. There was a positive, open and supportive culture at the service and staff felt well supported, listened to and valued.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (report published January 2019) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Dearne Valley Business Centre is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. The registered provider is Anderby Care Limited. Not everyone using service receives regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care.' This means help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
The last comprehensive inspection took place in March 2018 and the service was rated as requires improvement. We identified two breaches of regulation. This was because there were gaps in the records of staff recruitment, so it was not always evident that staff had been safely recruited. Also, the registered providers systems to ensure the service operated to an expected standard were not used and required embedding into practice. Following the last inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do to improve the key questions safe, effective, and well led, to at least 'good'. The action plan told us this would be completed by 31 July 2018; however, this was not completed.
You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Dearne Valley Business Centre’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
At this inspection we found the registered provider had made some improvements but not addressed all the concerns raised at our last inspection. We also found a further breach of regulation. This was because some staff told us they liked working for the agency and had received support, training and supervision to help them to carry out their roles. However, written records were not always available to show this. Other staff told us they had not received any training since they started work for the agency. The service continues to be rated 'requires improvement.' This is the second time the service has been rated 'requires improvement.'
At the time of our inspection there were 83 people using the service, 74 of whom were receiving personal care. The service was managed on a day to day basis by the owner, who was also the registered manager. 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 recruitment process was still not sufficiently robust despite this shortfall being referred to in the last inspection report. Recruitment of new staff was not always carried out in line with the requirements of the regulations and the organisation's policies and procedures. This meant people were not fully protected against the potential employment of unsuitable staff.
Generic risk assessments regarding people's care were documented. However, individual care plans and records were not always adequate in informing actions staff should take to keep the person safe.
There were processes in place to help ensure people received their medicines as intended. However, audits were not always completed in a timely way and we found improvements were required in medicine administration records.
The written records available did not always reflect the positive aspects of the service that people told us about. The people who used the service and relatives spoken with were all happy with the service provided. They told us the service was particularly person centred and risks were well managed.
There was a procedure in place to ensure any safeguarding concerns were addressed and reported. People spoken with felt safe using the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.
People told us they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However, there was a need to improve the written records in relation to this.
The service supported people to maintain a healthy diet, when this was part of the persons care package. People who required the involvement of healthcare professionals were assisted to obtain this support.
People told us the registered manager and care staff were very kind and caring. They said they treated people with respect and dignity, and cared for them in a way which met their needs.
People and their relatives told us they had been involved in formulating care plans. However, there was a need to improve the written records in relation to this.
The people we spoke with told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns, if they had any and said they would be listened to.
The registered manager had addressed some of the areas for improvement in the previous inspection report. However, issues of concern regarding staff recruitment and good governance of the service were still found. This showed that more in-depth monitoring of the quality of the service was needed.
The registered manager had introduced a system to monitor the quality of service delivery and of staff performance. However, this needed to be embedded into practice so that its effectiveness in improving the service could be seen.
People told us they had been consulted about their satisfaction in the service they received.
We found three breaches, two of these were continued breaches 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 the full version of this report.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Cottage Farm is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. The registered provider is Anderby Care Limited. Not everyone using service receives regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care.’ This means help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
At the time of our inspection there were 31 people using the service, 20 of whom were receiving personal care.
The service was managed on a day to day basis by the owner, who was also the registered manager. 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 rated ‘Requires Improvement.’
The written records available did not always reflect the very positive aspects of the service that people told us about. The people who used the service and relatives we spoke with were all very happy with the service provided. They told us that the service was particularly person centred and that risks were well managed. Staff told us they loved working for the agency and had received support, training and supervision to help them to carry out their roles. However, written records were not always available to show this.
There were gaps in the records of staff recruitment, so it was not always evident that staff had been safely recruited.
People told us they had been consulted about their satisfaction in the service they received. However, the registered provider did not have evidence of an effective system to monitor the quality of service delivery and of staff performance.
There was a procedure in place to ensure any safeguarding concerns were addressed and reported. People we spoke with felt safe using the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs
People told us they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However, there was a need to improve the written records in relation to this.
Improvements were needed to ensure documentation reflected the training and support staff received.
People told us the registered manager and care staff were very caring. They said they treated people with respect and dignity, and cared for them in a way which met their needs.
People and their relatives had been involved in formulating care plans. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The people we spoke with told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns, if they had any.
The service supported people to maintain a healthy diet, when this was part of the persons care package. People who required the involvement of health care professionals were assisted to obtain this support.
During this inspection we identified two breaches 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 the full version of the report.