Archived: Volcare Canterbury and Thanet

Updated 30 November 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 14 October 2016 and was announced. Notice of the inspection was given because the service was small and the management were often out of the office supporting volunteers. We needed a manager to be available during the inspection. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at reports and notifications about important events that had taken place at the service, which the provider is required to tell us by law.

We made telephone calls to one family carer to gain their views about the service. We spoke with three staff including the registered manager, deputy manager, service director and a volunteer to gain their views about the service.

We spent time looking at records, policies and procedures, complaint and incident and accident monitoring systems. We looked at two people’s care files, two volunteer record files, the volunteers training programme and medicine records.

At the previous inspection on 28 November 2013, the service had met the standards of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

Updated 30 November 2016

This inspection took place on 14 October 2016 and was announced.

Volcare care agency provides personalised respite care to people in their own homes to give families and main carers respite breaks. This inspection took place at the agencies office in Herne Bay. The care provided was tailored to people’s needs with a volunteer staying at the persons home with them from occasional day visits for a minimum of 6 hours each visit, to overnight stays and/or for holidays of up to two weeks at a time. People could have up to 21 days volunteer respite care a year. Over a 12 month period the service had been provided for 80 people. In September 2016, the month before the inspection, 34 people were using the service.

The volunteers complimented other paid services that people had in their homes. For example, most people had care packages from other community domiciliary agencies for washing and dressing, the administration of medicines and other identified care needs. Volcare’s role is to take over from the family carer, therefore any other agencies or services involved with these families continued delivering care packages whilst the cares respite takes place. In the absence of any other agencies being involved, or in between visits, volunteers carry out all necessary personal care tasks.

There was a registered manager employed at 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. The registered manager was not available during the inspection. However, the inspection process was supported by the deputy manager and the service director from a partner organisation.

People’s needs were fully assessed and care was planned with the main carer to maintain people’s safety, health and wellbeing. There were systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents. Risks were assessed before volunteers started to deliver care. However, the recorded hazards and control measures were not clearly defined in the risk management recording process.

We made a recommendation about this.

People thought that volunteers were caring and compassionate. Volunteers were trusted and well thought of by the families they provided respite for. People said the care was safe.

Volunteers had received intensive training and induction that included protecting people from abuse and showed a good understanding of what their responsibilities were in preventing abuse. Procedures for reporting any concerns were in place. The management knew how and when they should escalate concerns following the local authorities safeguarding protocols.

Other training included information about the Mental Capacity Act 2005, safe moving and handling, infection control and first aid.

Working in community settings volunteers often had to work on their own, but they were provided with good support and an ‘Outside Office Hours’ number to call during evenings and at weekends if they had concerns about people. The service could continue to run in the event of emergencies arising so that people’s care would continue. For example, if a respite volunteer became ill or if there was a power failure at the main office.

Recruitment policies were in place that had been followed. Volunteers were recruited safely and had been through a thorough selection process that ensured they were suitable to work with people who needed safeguarding. Safe recruitment practices included background and criminal records checks prior to volunteers starting work.

People experienced care from volunteers who were well trained and understood their needs. They told us that volunteers followed the agreed care routines and they trusted them in their own homes.

Volunteers had been trained to administer medicines safely and volunteers spoke confidently about their skills and abilities to do this well.

Volunteers were given guidance about supporting people to eat and drink enough and how to use equipment in people’s homes. Care plans were kept reviewed and updated.

There were policies in place, which ensured people would be listened to and treated fairly if they complained. The registered manager ensured that people’s care met their most up to date needs and any issues raised were dealt with to people’s satisfaction.

People were happy with the leadership and approachability of the service’s registered manager who was also the provider of the service. They had a clear quality based vision of the service they wanted to provide and understood how to achieve this. Volunteers felt well supported by the registered manager. Audits were effective and risks were monitored by the registered manager to keep people safe.