You are here

Archived: Volcare Canterbury and Thanet Good

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


Inspection carried out on 14 October 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 28 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We found the agency had all the required policies and procedures in place to ensure people's safety and welfare was maintained. All volunteers were seen to have been through a thorough recruitment process. All volunteers had undertaken mandatory training required to carry out their role and some had been supported to gain extra qualifications. This meant that the needs of the people using the service were met by experienced and well trained volunteers.

All people supported by the agency underwent a thorough assessment of needs. The full time carer or person themselves created their own care plan, covering a detailed approach required. The manager of the agency then converted this information into their own format to ensure continuity in paperwork and making all care plans easy to follow.

All care plans were reviewed frequently and adapted as soon as required. Evidence was seen of this on the day of inspection, where a full time carer called with updated information. The manager immediately made the changes required and this was taken to the person's home later in the day. This was then agreed as accurate and put into place.

One person told us, 'If anything changes, the manager includes it into the care plan immediately, it is a great guide for the volunteers'. Another stated, 'I feel very safe with my volunteers, I give them 100 out of 100'.

Inspection carried out on 1 March 2013

During a routine inspection

The agency had policies and procedures in place that ensured people's needs and wishes were assessed and recorded prior to them receiving care.

Records showed that people were supported to make choices about their care. One person told us: "I write the care plan. Everything I need is included in it. My support needs are decided by me".

People's needs were recorded in a plan of care that was kept under review. Risks to people's safety were assessed and plans to reduce and monitor risks to both people using the service and staff were recorded.

Staff had received safeguarding training and those that we spoke to were aware of how and when to report any concerns. People using the service told us. "I trust our volunteer 100%", and: "Everyone is so approachable. I know if I had a problem I would be listened to and it would be sorted out quickly".

Evidence we saw showed us that people were supported by a caring, experienced staff team. The staff team were well supported and trained.

There was a regular cycle of quality audits undertaken to ensure that the service was kept under review. Records showed us that people using the service, and their families were consulted.