Archived: European Wellcare Lifestyles Limited (Fareham)

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Is the service safe?

People had individual risk assessments. Where a risk or need had been identified, there was a written plan to inform staff as to how to reduce the risk. We saw people had access to medical support as necessary. People were not protected by the service's medicines procedures and medicine records were not maintained.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. We found staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. There were proper policies and procedures in place and these had been followed.

Is the service effective?

We observed people were happy with the care they received and they told us they were happy. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff they understood people's care and support needs and they knew them well.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff had a good understanding of people's support needs. They were supportive and were available when people needed them.

Is the service responsive?

Records showed people's preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support had been provided to meet their wishes. People were supported to maintain and increase their independence.

Is the service well-led?

There was a general lack of auditing of records within the service. There were insufficient systems to record, monitor, evaluate and improve the service, care and support that people received.

We found that people's care needs were met in the supported living services. For those people who received an 'outreach' service we noted there were significant problems. This followed an amalgamation of another agency's service which was also run by the provider. This transition was not well organised and we were not notified that a number of care staff had left with the result that seven people did not have a care package for one week. One of the relatives told us they were not informed in advance of the changes to the service provision.

We found the agency carried out checks on the suitability of newly appointed staff to work with vulnerable people. We also saw that staff who worked in a supported living service received training and supervision. A staff member who worked in the 'outreach' service reported a lack of supervision.

Relatives told us they were generally satisfied with the service provided by the agency. One relative said the service was of a 'very high standard.' Relatives said the agency provided a reliable service. Relatives said the staff treated people with respect and involved people in decisions about their care. Relatives said people were helped with a range of care and social needs such as personal care and being supported to use community facilities. One relative said personal care was not always of an adequate standard and said this had been raised with the agency which was receptive to dealing with this concern. We found this person's records did not show personal care needs were fully assessed nor a care plan for personal care devised.

We found that the agency had an effective staff recruitment procedure, which included the input of people and their relatives. Staff had access to a range of relevant training courses and received one to one supervision.

Relatives told us they felt able to raise any issues with the agency's management