You are here

Archived: Carewatch (South Midlands) Harborough Branch Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 23 February 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 23 February 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection, this was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to speak with us.

The service provided personal care to adults with a variety of needs living in their own homes. This included people living with dementia, physical disabilities, older people, people with learning disabilities, children, people who misuse drugs and people with an eating disorder. At the time of the inspection there were 106 people using the service.

The service had a 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.

People told us that they felt safe when staff supported them.

Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people in a safe manner. The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in these areas.

People told us that staff arrived on time for appointments to support them. We saw that there was a system in place that monitored the time staff arrived and left each appointment.

People were supported to take their medicines by care workers who had received training in medicines management.

When people started to use the service a care plan was developed that included information about their support needs, likes, dislikes and preferences. This meant that staff had the relevant information to meet people’s needs.

People were prompted to maintain a balanced diet where they were supported with eating and drinking. People were supported to access healthcare services and staff monitored people for changes in their health and well-being.

Care workers were supported through training and supervision to be able to meet the care needs of people they supported. They undertook an induction programme when they started work at the service.

Staff told us that they sought people’s consent prior to providing their care.

Staff developed caring relationships with people and understood people’s needs and preferences.

People were involved in decisions about their support. They told us that staff treated them with respect.

People were involved in the assessment and review of their needs.

The service was well organised and led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

The provider carried out monitoring in relation to the quality of the service that people received.

Inspection carried out on 7 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 7 January 2015 and was announced.

At the last inspection on 23 April 2014 the provider was not meeting six of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 Regulations. Following our inspection we asked the provider to take action to make improvements. We asked them to improve practice in relation to respecting and involving people, consent to care and treatment, meeting people’s care and welfare needs, supporting staff and the systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made but further improvement was needed to meet the relevant requirements.

Carewatch (South Midlands) Harborough provides care and support to people with needs associated with age, dementia, learning disabilities, physical disabilities or mental health living in the own homes in the community. At the time of our inspection 95 people were receiving personal care from the service.

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 time of our inspection an acting manager was managing the service, they had submitted an application form to us to become the registered manager.

People that used the service told us that improvements had been made with regard to the service they received. On the whole people said they received consistent care workers who provided their care and support. However, whilst improvements had been made to missed calls people were still experiencing late calls.

Care workers were aware of their responsibilities with regard to people’s health and safety. We found people received their medication safely and as prescribed by their doctor.

Care workers received an induction and ongoing training opportunities. We found care workers received inconsistent support and supervision. Some care workers had received opportunities to review their practice and training needs and others had not.

People’s human rights were protected because the acting manager was aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were asked their consent before care was provided.

People received appropriate support to manage any dietary and hydration needs.

Care workers were compassionate, kind and caring. They provided respect and dignity when providing care and support.

People had been involved in the development and review of their care package and had been asked about their routines and how they wished to be supported.

People had access to information about the provider’s complaints procedure.

There were quality and safety assurance systems in place that monitored the service.

Inspection carried out on 23 April 2014

During a routine inspection

Prior to our inspection we reviewed all the information we had received from the provider. We spoke with 13 people who used the service and seven relatives for their views about the service.

We spoke with the six members of staff, the acting manager, area manager and the managing director. We also had contact with the local authority.

We looked at some of the records held in the service, including the care files for 13 people who used the service.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask. This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them.

Whilst people had received an assessment of their needs and care plans had been developed, we found some concerns with risk assessments. Some people had not had all their needs appropriately risk assessed. This meant staff were not fully aware of information they needed to know to keep people safe.

Not all care plans had been reviewed to make sure they were up to date and reflected people’s needs.

The systems in place to enable people to contact the service for assistance, had shortfalls which put people at unnecessary risk. People found it difficult to contact the service when they needed to.

Is the service effective?

People told us they had been involved in their assessment and reviews of their care package. People said they were supported in a way that met their needs, preferences and routines. However, the majority of people who used the service told us the quality of the service had declined recently. For example, they did not always know what staff would support them and when.

People told us they found staff to be respectful and caring, and their consent was sought before care and support was provided.

We found some concerns with the provider’s practice, in relation to supporting people who may not have had the capacity, to consent to their care and support. Policies and procedures lacked information and guidance.

The agency failed to support its staff appropriately. Staff rotas were often given to staff with short notice. Insufficient travelling times sometimes impacted, on the staff’s ability to provide the service that people expected.

Is the service caring?

On the whole people told us they found the staff kind, caring and supportive. People gave examples of how staff made a difference to their lives, and supported them to live independently in the community.

We found staff to be dedicated, caring, compassionate and knowledgeable about the people they cared for.

Whilst the service was experiencing difficulties, we found the provider acknowledged the shortfalls, and demonstrated a commitment to improve the service.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they had made complaints about the service. Not all people we spoke with felt their complaints had been resolved to a satisfactory conclusion.

We found some concerns with the provider’s complaints policy and procedure. The procedure for recording complaints did not fully show the complaints people told us about. The system for recording complaints were incomplete.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. However, we found these systems had failed to ensure people received a quality service at all times.

We found concerns with the systems in place to monitor staff training and support. Staff had not received opportunities to discuss and review their practice and development needs. Some staff had not received refresher training as required.

Inspection carried out on 14 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People said the agency provided good care. One person told us, “I look forward to the carers coming because they are so helpful and kind. If it wasn’t for them I’d be in a home.” Another commented, “We are very pleased with the care we get. The carers look after our relative very well and do everything they should do for them.”

People told us they liked the staff at Carewatch. One person said, “They are genuinely caring people. Some of them have looked after their own family members and it has given them an insight into what caring for is all about.” Another commented, “The staff are all vey nice. They’ve all got their own way of doing things but each one of them does it right.”

Since we last inspected the company that owns Carewatch (South Midlands) Harborough Branch has restructured some of its services. The Harborough branch has kept its office in Market Harborough, and taken over some of the work of the company’s Broughton Astley branch.

Inspection carried out on 17 July 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they thought the care the agency provided was good and they got on well with the staff. One person said, “It’s a lovely start to the day when my carers come in. They do everything I ask them to do and they remember how I like things done.” Another person commented, “The carers are like my friends and they always have a chat and a laugh with me when they visit.”

People said they would speak out if they weren’t happy with the service. One person told us, “I’ve never had a complaint but once I wasn’t keen on a particular carer so I told the office and they didn’t send them again.” Another person said, “If I have any problems at all I ring the office. That’s what they told me to do.”

People told us they were satisfied with the agency staff. One person said, “The carers are excellent – they are always polite and I can recommend them.” Another told us, “The carers always go beyond the call of duty.”

People said the agency listened to their views and made changes where possible to help ensure the service was what they wanted. One person told us, “I have two regular carers who I get on particularly well with. I have asked for them to come as much as possible and the agency has agreed to send them whenever they can.”