You are here

Blue Ocean Services Requires improvement

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

We are carrying out a review of quality at Blue Ocean Services. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2018

This inspection of Blue Ocean Services took place on 9 January 2018 and was announced. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. Not everyone using Blue Ocean Services receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; 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 the inspection 51 people were using the service.

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.

At the last inspection on 25 February 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service had not met all the regulations we inspected. We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, good governance and notifications of other incidents and the service has therefore been rated Requires Improvement.

The registered manager completed individual risk assessments for people. The risk management plans helped guide staff in minimising risks for people. However, we found risk management plans were not always sufficiently detailed.

Care plans were person centred and contained information about people's backgrounds and needs so staff could support them in ways they preferred. Plans contained instructions for care workers about what to do on each visit. However, we found care plans did not always contain people’s assessed needs for staff to care for people in an effective way.

Medicines were administered to people as prescribed. Staff received training to administer medicines and had their competency assessed to ensure they continued to do this safely. However, medication administration records were not always completed accurately.

Accidents and incidents were logged as were the actions to mitigate them happening again. However, we found that on some occasions that actions to reduce the risk of this recurring had not been fully implemented.

The registered manager did not always fulfil the requirements of their registration with CQC. They did not always notify us of safeguarding concerns as required by law.

The service was monitored and reviewed to ensure the care provided was of good quality. However, we found some areas of the service were not of good quality because the quality assurance systems were not effectively used.

Enough staff were available to care for people. Staff were allocated to people to provide care and support to them, where necessary two care workers were provided.

Safer recruitment processes ensured suitably skilled staff were employed to work with people. Checks were carried out on staff before they were approved as suitable for employment.

There was a safeguarding policy in place and staff regularly attended safeguarding training. Care workers understood what whistleblowing meant and said they would contact the registered manager to inform them if they had any concerns about the quality of care.

The registered manager supported staff through training, supervision and appraisal. Staff discussed the challenges and rewards they experienced while working with people. Staff reflected on and took action to improve their practice.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were followed by the registered manager and staff. MCA training was made available for all care staff. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff provided care in the least restrictive way possible for people. The policies and systems in the service support

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2018

Aspects of the service were not always safe.

Risks associated with people’s care needs were identified by staff. However, risk management plans did not always provide staff with sufficient information to mitigate those risks.

Accidents and incidents were recorded but lessons learnt from these were not always shared to reduce recurrence.

Staff knew the signs of abuse and what actions to take to protect people from the risk from harm and abuse.

There was enough staff recruited and deployed to support people.

People’s medicines were managed safely by staff and people had their medicine as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff assessed people’s needs and choices.

Staff were supported through training and on-going supervision and appraisal.

People had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and meet their preferences.

The registered manager worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to improve the care delivered to people.

People were supported by staff to attend health care appointments when they needed this support.

The registered manager and staff had an awareness of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff obtained consent from people receiving care.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 May 2018

The service was caring. People said staff respected them and provided them with caring, compassionate and dignified care.

People contributed and made decisions about how they wanted to receive their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 May 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

Assessments of needs of people’s care and support took place. However, people’s care plans did not always contain sufficient information for staff to provide accurate care.

The registered provider had a complaints system for people to raise concerns.

Care records held people’s end of life care wishes and needs.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 26 May 2018

The service was not always well led.

There was an audit system in place to review the quality of care. However, we found the quality of care records was not always accurate and updated with people’s current care needs.

The registered manager did not always notify the Care Quality Commission of incidents that occurred at the service.

Staff understood their roles whilst working for the service.

People provided their feedback about the service.