You are here

Archived: Allied Healthcare Norwich

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 August 2013
Date of Publication: 21 September 2013
Inspection Report published 21 September 2013 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 13 August 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about the care and treatment provided and these views were acted upon. People described how they were consulted about their package of care and support and this was kept under review. They told us that they received the care and support they needed and that had been agreed. We saw that there was a process for keeping all packages of care under review. Password protected electronic diaries were used so that staff were alerted when a review became due. Early reviews took place when staff alerted the office to changes affecting the person that might require a change to the care and support they received.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. We were told that quality questionnaires were sent to people by the organisation’s head office to seek the views of people. A report summary was sent to the manager on a monthly basis, detailing the branches overall quality assurance score against Key Performance Indicators, so that an improvement plan could be developed. Some of the people we spoke with confirmed they had received a questionnaire and a number of them had completed and returned it to the head office.

People said they knew how to complain if they were dissatisfied with the service although most people could not remember where their copy of the complaints procedure was. One person who had complained in the past told us that, “In the past they were not listening to me but it is better now.” Another person said, “I’m very happy with the service, I have no complaints.” During our visit to the office, we were told about how a review of practice was taking place because concerns about missed and late calls had been received.

We looked at the organisation’s complaints procedure, which was clearly displayed on the office noticeboard in the reception area. The procedure included details about how to escalate the complaint if the person was dissatisfied with the response. We were told that a copy of the complaints procedure was given to all service users within the client information pack. All expressions of concern or dissatisfaction were recorded within the person’s electronic diary where update information was also recorded. Where appropriate, development plans were put in place so that concerns were thoroughly addressed. Where necessary, the complainant would be visited so that their concerns could be discussed in full.

All monitoring of accidents and other incidents were completed by the manager in order to assess what had caused the accident and what steps, if any, needed to be taken to reduce the risk that the accident may occur again. All accidents and incidents were logged immediately on to the companies electronic incident and accident monitoring system and the root cause and learning outcomes were identified and the appropriate action taken immediately.