You are here

Archived: Volcare Canterbury and Thanet Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

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 safe

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was safe.

People experienced safe care. The systems in place to manage risk and recruitment had ensured that people were kept safe.

The registered manager and volunteers were committed to preventing abuse.

Medicines were safely administered by competent volunteers.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was effective.

People were cared for by volunteers who knew their needs and routines well.

Volunteers received comprehensive induction and training. They met with the registered manager to discuss their work performance.

The registered manager and volunteers followed the principals of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was caring.

People could forge good relationships with volunteers so that they were comfortable and felt well treated.

People were treated as individuals, able to make choices about their care.

People had been involved in planning their care and their views were taken into account.

People experienced care from volunteers who respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People were provided with care when they needed it based on assessments and the development of a care plan about them.

Volunteers spoke to other health and social care professionals if they had concerns about people’s health and wellbeing.

People were consistently asked what they thought of the care provided.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was well led.

The service had benefited from consistent and stable management so that systems and policies were effective and focused on service delivery.

Volunteers were informed and enthusiastic about delivering high quality care. They were supported to do this on a day-to-day basis.

There were clear structures in place to monitor and review the risks.