Archived: Ark Home Healthcare Limited

The provider had information about people's current needs and most people we spoke with said the service met these needs. There was praise for the qualities of the care workers, such as being caring, gentle, courteous and patient. A person using the service said, 'It means such a lot when you get a lovely good morning greeting, it makes you feel important.' A few people were not happy with the quality of the service and said calls were sometimes late or one care worker came instead of two.

Staff were trained in assisting with medication and most of them understood the policy and procedures to follow. However, there were some inconsistencies in the way that support with medication was recorded, and care workers did not always follow Ark procedures.

Care workers we spoke with who had joined the provider in the last year, told us about the process for applying for jobs and being interviewed. There were appropriate checks in place before care workers began working for Ark.

We found the provider had monitoring checks in place to assess the quality of the service, but there was inconsistency in the way that findings of these checks were addressed. A few people we spoke with said when they raised concerns about the service, Ark did not take action to make improvements.

The records of people using the service and staff were accurate and fit for purpose. A relative said that the care workers log of their tasks contributed to continuity of care.

The people using the service and their relatives were very positive about the care worker(s) who visited them regularly. A person using the service said about her care, 'It's how I want it to be, I'm very happy with it. I get on really well with my carer. She's as nice as pie. She does things how I like and we talk together.'

The provider had information about people's current needs. A few relatives commented that when the regular care worker was away, there were sometimes problems with missed or late visits. We found processes had improved so that people were better protected against these risks.

Staff were trained in assisting with medication and understood the policy and procedures to follow. Medication errors were reported and investigated appropriately.

Care workers we spoke with who had joined the provider in the last year told us their induction prepared them well for their job. Other care workers had received, or were booked to receive, training but not all of them had been invited to meetings with their line manager.

We found the provider was continuing to make improvements to the service and to respond appropriately to feedback from people using the service and staff.

The records of people using the service and staff were being updated, but this process was not yet complete.

During our recent inspection of 18 January 2013 we found there had been improvements, but some actions had not been completed.

The people using the service we spoke with said they had regular care workers who treated them with consideration and respect. One of them said the care worker 'treats me with respect and dignity'. A relative said there were now 'carers that care'. There had also been improvements in the way that people were consulted about their service.

We found scheduling of visits had been improved to ensure people's safety and welfare. However, there was sometimes insufficient detail about people's current needs.

There was evidence of improvements to the systems to identify, assess and manage risks to people using the service. However, people who use the service and care workers reported they did not always receive a timely response to their queries from the office.

Care workers were receiving training, but not all of them were attending regular supervision meetings with their manager.