Background to this inspection
Updated
11 October 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 17 August 2017 and was announced. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure someone would be available to meet with us. The inspection continued on 24 August 2017 when one adult social care inspector made telephone calls to staff. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors. Two experts by experience made telephone calls to people using the service and their relatives to gain feedback about the service provided. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their area of expertise was with older people.
Prior to our inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included information from notifications received from the registered provider and feedback from the local authority and health service commissioners. At the time of the inspection a Provider Information Return (PIR) was available for this service. This 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.
During our visit we reviewed four people’s care records. We also looked at three records relating to staff recruitment and training, and various documents relating to the service’s quality assurance systems. We spoke with the operational support manager, a care delivery manager who was supporting in the absence of the registered manager, two field care supervisors and one member of care staff at the service. Following the inspection we spoke with four members of care staff on the telephone. We spoke on the telephone with nine people using the service and five of their relatives.
Updated
11 October 2017
The inspection of Allied Healthcare took place on 17 August 2017 and was announced. We told the provider that we would be coming because we needed to be certain there would be people in the service for us to talk to. We also made phone calls to staff on 24 August 2017. The service was registered at their new office on 25 February 2017 and this was their first inspection at this location.
Allied Healthcare in Huddersfield provides a homecare service in the Kirklees and Calderdale area of Yorkshire. At the time of the inspection 89 people were 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. The registered manager was absent from work at the time of the inspection and did not return. The service support manager and a care delivery manager were working at the service for part of the week to provide management support.
People we spoke with told us they were generally happy with the service provided and they felt safe with Allied Healthcare Huddersfield. Staff had received safeguarding training and they were aware of their responsibility to report any concerns to their manager. The service had procedures in place for identifying and following up allegations of abuse, and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the procedures to follow.
Care plans contained risk assessments which were relevant to people’s individual needs and the environment and contained sufficient detail to provide direction for staff in how to reduce risks to people.
People told us staff were usually on time and visits were very rarely missed. The service had effective contingency plans in place in the event of unforeseen changes in staff availability.
The registered provider had a robust system in place to vet potential employees. All staff who administered medicines were trained and assessed as competent. This meant people received their medicines from people who had the appropriate knowledge and skills.
Staff told us they felt supported. New employees were supported in their role completing a thorough induction and shadowing more experienced staff and there was a programme of on-going refresher training for existing staff. Staff told us they received supervision to ensure they had the skills and competence to meet people’s needs.
People told us they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People told us staff were caring and kind. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and care plans reflected the need to encourage people to retain their independence. The service catered for people's diverse needs and people were matched to care staff to provide continuity of care.
People had care plans in place which noted the tasks they required support with, as well as detail about their choices and preferences. Staff told us these were reflective of people’s needs and we saw these were updated regularly.
An effective complaints procedure was in place and people told us staff were approachable.
People who used the service told us the service was well-led and they were generally happy with the care provided. Some people told us there had been a lot of management changes over the last year, but this had now improved.
The registered provider had a system in place to monitor the performance of the service. Staff were monitored at regular intervals and audits were completed of people’s daily records, care plans and staff files. The registered provider asked people who used the service and staff for feedback and this information was reviewed and used to improve the service.