Archived: Consistent Care Services

Updated 30 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was 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 14 August 2017 and 15 August 2017 and was unannounced. We carried out the inspection unannounced because we had been provided with information of concern about the management of the service.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

We reviewed information that we held about the service. This included notifications we received about incidents and events that had occurred at the service, which the provider was required to send us by law. We also spoke with local authority stakeholders to gain their experiences of the service.

We spoke with two people who used the service and two relatives, four care staff, a senior care worker, the trainee manager, the registered manager and the provider. We viewed four records that showed how people's care needs and medicines were assessed and managed. We also viewed seven staff training and recruitment files and records that showed how the service was monitored and managed.

Updated 30 March 2018

We completed an unannounced inspection at Consistent Care Services on 14 August 2017 and 15 August 2017. This was the first ratings inspection since the provider registered with us (CQC) on the 30 March 2017.

Consistent Care Services are registered to provide personal care. People are supported with their personal care needs to enable them to live independently in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service supported four people in their own homes in the Cheshire area.

There was a registered manager 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. However, after the inspection we were given information that the registered manager planned to leave the service and de-register from their role as registered manager.

We found that there were no systems in place to monitor and manage the quality of the service provided. This meant that areas of poor practice and ineffective training we found at our inspection had not been identified by the provider.

Systems in place to gain people’s feedback about their care were not effective because there was no evidence that feedback had been acted upon to make improvements to the care provided.

Records did not always contain up to date information to ensure staff had the guidance to provide safe and individualised care.

Staff training was not effective. Some staff did not have sufficient knowledge of safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant that people were at risk of receiving unsafe and ineffective care.

Improvements were needed to ensure staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe where abuse may be suspected.

Improvements were needed to ensure people’s risks were consistently planned for to protect people from potential harm.

We found some improvements were needed to ensure that people's medicines were managed in a way that kept people safe from harm.

There were enough staff available to meet people's assessed needs. We saw that all staff had undergone police checks to ensure they were suitable to provide care. However, the provider had not ensured that all staff had employment references from previous employment.

We found that records were not clear whether people had consented to their care where they were able to. When people were unable to consent to their care it was not clear that representatives had the authority to make decisions in people’s best interests.

Plans were not always in place to ensure that appropriate professionals were contacted to gain advice to ensure risks to people were lowered.

Some improvements were needed to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills to be as caring as possible when supporting people with their choices if they lacked the capacity to make informed choices.

People were involved in the planning of their care. However, some improvements were needed to ensure that people’s preferences and assessed needs were detailed in care plans to ensure staff had sufficient guidance to provide individualised care.

People told us the staff were kind and caring and people's dignity was maintained when they received support from staff.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts and staff understood people's nutritional needs and preferences.

People told us they knew how to complain and the provider had a complaints system in place.