You are here

Archived: Lighthouse Homecare Inadequate

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 20 September 2016

This inspection took place on 18 and 19 May 2016. To ensure we met the provider and staff at the service’s main office, we gave short notice of our inspection.

This location is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service provided personal care support to ten people in a supported living service. The premises consisted of individual rooms which people could lock and shared communal areas.

We are currently reviewing details of the service provision at the premises to ensure that the provider is registered for the correct regulated activity.

People who used the service were younger and older adults with either physical or mental health needs or learning disabilities and people with alcohol and substance misuse needs.

The service did not have 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 service did not have a registered manager in place to ensure the effective operational management of the service. The provider had not ensured effective oversight of the service in the absence of a registered manager.

Staff had not received the relevant training or understood what processes they needed to follow to keep people safe from possible harm. Staff had not received training to meet people’s individual care and treatment needs. Staff had not received training in the principles of the MCA (2005). Staff had not received regular supervision to address their training and development needs to ensure people received effective care.

Fire safety measures were not sufficiently robust to ensure people would be safely evacuated in the event of a fire. Health and safety assessments had not been completed to ensure the environment was safe for people.

There was an insufficient staffing level to meet people’s assessed needs. The provider had not completed safe recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to care for people.

People had not consistently had access to appropriate health professionals to effectively meet their health needs. People’s care and treatment was not routinely reviewed with the involvement of relevant health care professionals to ensure their health, safety and welfare.

Staff had not reviewed people’s care plans and risk assessments regularly with their involvement. Staff followed care plans and provided care which did not reflect people’s most current needs and preferences.

The provider had not encouraged people or explored different ways of giving people information about how to make a complaint. A complaints process was not in place to ensure service improvements were made.

The provider had not considered accessible ways to inform people about services available to them, to include advocacy. We have made a recommendation about this.

People’s care plans were not personalised in all cases to enable staff to meet people’s individual preferences. We have made a recommendation about this.

The provider had not notified us of significant events at the service. The provider had not demonstrated they understood their regulatory obligations to share important information with us to keep people safe.

The provider had not routinely consulted people or staff to obtain their feedback to influence how the service was developed.

A robust quality assurance system was not in place to effectively identify all service shortfalls and to ensure service improvements were made.

The service supported people to have meals that were in sufficient quantity, well balanced and met people’s needs and choices.

People told us staff treated them with kindness, compassion and respect. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged t

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 20 September 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

Staff had not received the relevant training or understood what processes they needed to follow to keep people safe.

Fire safety measures were not sufficiently robust to ensure people would be safely evacuated in the event of a fire.

Health and safety assessments had not been completed to ensure the environment was safe for people.

There was an insufficient staffing level to meet people�s assessed needs. The provider had not completed safe recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to care for people.

Medicines were stored, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 20 September 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

Staff had not received training to meet people�s individual care and treatment needs.

Staff had not received regular supervision to address their development needs to ensure people received effective care.

Staff had not routinely obtained people�s consent to ensure they received care in the least restrictive way.

People had not consistently had access to appropriate health professionals to effectively meet their health needs.

Staff supported people to have meals that were in sufficient quantity, well balanced and met people�s needs and choices.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2016

The service was not consistently caring.

People�s views about the caring approach of the service were not routinely recorded as part of care reviews or other consultation processes.

The provider had not considered accessible ways to inform people about services available to them, to include advocacy.

People told us staff treated them with kindness, compassion and respect. People�s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Staff promoted people�s independence and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2016

The service was not consistently responsive.

Staff had not reviewed people�s care plans and risk regularly with people�s involvement. Staff did not follow care plans which reflected people�s most current needs and preferences.

People�s care and treatment was not routinely provided with the involvement of relevant health care professionals to ensure their health, safety and welfare.

The provider had not encouraged people to make a complaint. A complaints process was not in place to ensure service improvements were made.

People�s care plans were not personalised in all cases to enable staff to meet people�s individual preferences. We have made a recommendation about this.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 20 September 2016

The service was not consistently well led.

The service did not have a registered manager in place to ensure the effective operational management of the service.

The provider had not notified us of significant events at the service. The provider had not demonstrated they understood their regulatory duties to share important information with us to keep people safe.

The provider had not routinely consulted people or staff to influence how the service was developed.

A robust quality assurance system was not in place to effectively identify all service shortfalls and to ensure service improvements were made.