You are here

Archived: Independant Living Services Requires improvement

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 22 and 23 January 2015

During a routine inspection

Independant Living Services is a domiciliary care agency based in Chesterfield. It provides personal care to people in their own homes, mostly in the Chesterfield area.

The inspection took place on 22 and 23 January 2015.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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.

Since our previous inspection visit in January 2014 we had received a significant amount of information of concern. The key issues from this information concerned the timing of calls, inadequate staff training and insufficient staff to undertake the tasks agreed. We looked into these issues as part of our inspection. The manager confirmed that the information we had received about timing of calls and availability of staff had been correct in most cases. Some improvements had been made following a change of management and operational systems in November 2014. There were enough staff available at the service but we have made a recommendation about their deployment. Staff received relevant training and guidance to ensure people’s needs were met.

People using the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had provided guidance to staff to help minimise any risk of abuse. Decisions related to peoples care were taken in consultation with them, their representative and other healthcare professionals, which ensured their rights were protected.

People told us the care staff were caring and kind and they mostly received the support agreed in their care plan. Formal complaints were well managed but informal concerns and communication with the office had not always been consistent or resolved issues satisfactorily. We have made a recommendation about the management of complaints.

The registered manager at the agency was familiar with needs of the people using the service and staff felt supported by the management team. There were systems in place to enable people to give feedback on the service.

Inspection carried out on 15 January 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

The purpose of this visit was to check the action taken by the provider, since our last visit in September 2013, to ensure they were meeting essential standards. We did not speak with any people who used the service but gathered evidence of people�s experiences of the service by other means.

People�s improved care records included personalised guidance for staff on meeting people�s safety and welfare needs. This meant that the service was enabling staff to meet these needs.

The service�s policies, procedures and risk assessments had been improved. This meant that people were being protected from the risk of abuse through a better understanding by staff of the potential risks to which people were exposed.

Inspection carried out on 11 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with were generally happy with the care they received from Independant Living Services (ILS).

We found that sufficient numbers of staff were usually available to provide people's care.

We found although some improvements had been made, care was not planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's welfare and safety. This was because care planning and assessment of risk was inadequate and sufficient information was not available to guide staff about people's care.

We found that appropriate consent was not always being obtained for people's care. This was because where people could not make their own decisions, for example due to dementia or a learning disability, appropriate arrangements were not in place.

People receiving care from ILS were not adequately protected from abuse or neglect because risks were not identified and managed to ensure they were safe from harm. We found that staff were not fully aware of how to respond to any concerns about abuse.

We saw that where people were assessed to need support to take medication, arrangements were not ensuring they were protected from the risk of harm.

Inspection carried out on 19 February 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

This inspection was in response to concerns notified to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) by social services about how the provider was reporting and dealing with allegations of abuse of people receiving care and support.

Inspection carried out on 4 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that people were generally happy with the care they received from Independent Living Services (ILS). One person said, "I'm happy with the care. The carers are polite and respectful."

Another person told us that they knew most of the staff well and said, "They are respectful and generally on time."

We saw that a complaints procedure was in place and any complaints made were dealt with satisfactorily by the provider.

We found that staff were recruited using suitable procedures, including completing criminal records bureau checks, and that appropriate relevant records were kept.

We saw that people�s consent was sometimes obtained for their care, but that this was not done consistently. We also saw that if people were unable to make decisions for themselves, for example due to dementia, that the appropriate procedures were not always being used to obtain and record consent for their care.

We found that although assessments were completed and there was some information in care files, that care planning systems did not fully describe people's needs or personalised ways of providing support. We also found that risks that could affect people were not always adequately assessed and managed. We also found that records did not always accurately describe the support people needed with their medication, and this could put them at risk. Because of this we found that people were not always fully protected from receiving inappropriate or unsafe care.