You are here

Open World 2 Limited Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 4 July 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Open World 2 Limited is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care support to people with a learning disability, and autism spectrum disorder. 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 the inspection, one person was receiving personal care support. Care was provided by the registered manager and at present they did not employ any staff.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The person who used the service said they felt safe, the registered manager was kind and the care received was good. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.

The provider had not always identified risks to people who used the service or put in place guidance on how to reduce risks where these were identified. The provider had not always updated people's risk assessments to reflect their changing needs. We have made a recommendation about assessing the risks to people.

Care records were personalised and contained information about people’s life history, likes and dislikes. However, we found the care plan lacked detail for specific tasks. We have made a recommendation about personalised care planning.

The provider did not have robust systems in place to check the quality of the service provided. This was in relation to risk assessments and reviews, record keeping and person-centred care.

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.

The person told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with the registered manager showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint.

At the time of our inspection the service did not have any people receiving end of life care. The service had an end of life policy in policy.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection of the service we were unable to gather sufficient evidence to provide a rating for the service (published 14 January 2019).

Why we inspected

This inspection was part of our routine scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of the care people received.

Enforcement

We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 around good governance.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 8 November 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 8 and 15 November 2018 and was announced.

Open World 2 is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults living in their own houses and flats in the community and specialist housing.

At the time of our inspection one person was using the service. Care was provided by the registered manager and at present they did not employ any staff.

This was Open World 2 first inspection but they were not rated. We were unable to gather sufficient evidence to provide a rating for the service.

There was a registered manager at the service who was also the provider. 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.

People were kept safe at the service as risk assessments were performed to mitigate against known risks to ensure they did not come to any harm.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as the registered manager knew to report concerns and how to escalate them if the matter was not being taken seriously.

The registered manager checked people’s equipment before it was used in their home and reported concerns to the relevant health professional involved with the person’s care.

At the time of the inspection no one was receiving medicine support however the service had a medicine policy to manage medicines however the policy was not clear on the safe recording of medicines. We have made a recommendation in relation to medicine management.

People were protected from the risks of infection as personal protective equipment to minimise the risk of cross contamination.

People received care from registered manager who had the skills and knowledge to support them.

People and relatives gave positive feedback that the registered manager knew what they were doing and was competent in their job.

The service did not employ any staff but had systems in place to support them in mandatory training, ongoing support via supervision and an appraisal to review their work.

The registered manager understood the principles of the mental capacity act and to support people to make their own decisions wherever possible.

The registered manager engaged with health professionals involved in people’s care to maintain good health for them.

People and their relative told us the registered manager was caring and spent time getting to know the person. People’s privacy and dignity was respected when people received personal care. The registered manager treated people with respect respected people’s diversity.

Care plans were individualised and clearly said what people what from their care. Care plans provided on people’s life history and their preferences. The service provided information on how to make a complaint and where to go after a local complaint with the service was not successful.

The registered manager had received training in end of life care and explained how they would follow the wishes of the person but did not have a policy for this at their service.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service which included spot checks and questionnaires. Positive feedback was received on the quality of the service.

We found there were gaps in care plan records and have made a recommendation in this area.