You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

Care Connect is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 97 people using the service who lived in Cheshire East and Cheshire West and the surrounding area. The provider employed 70 care staff, two co-coordinators, a training officer, a care manager and the registered manager.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 25 and 30 October 2018 and was announced.

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 new registered manager had started to implement systems for reviewing, monitoring and assessing the quality of the service. The provider was undertaking their own internal audits of the records; therefore they were able to demonstrate how they monitored and identified any shortfalls. There was a plan to collate all information gathered and to take action to drive improvements.

The provider had ensured that staff received regular support, training and supervision and had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs. Training materials were up to date and reflected current good practice guidelines and legislation.

People received their medicines on time and the information available to staff about people's medicines was up to date. There were risk assessments in place so that staff had the guidance they needed to ensure people received their medicines safely.

People's risk assessments were in place and had been updated and reviewed to reflect changes in their needs.

Care records were informative and up-to-date. Each person using the service had a personalised care and support plan and a risk assessment. All records we saw were complete, up to date and regularly reviewed. We found that people and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support.

We found that recruitment practices were in place which included the completion of pre-employment checks prior to a new member of staff working at the service and disciplinary procedures had been followed appropriately and in accordance with policies. There was an issue with one of the six staff recruitment records that the references were not validated and did not correspond with the application form.

Staff received a comprehensive induction programme, regular training and supervision to enable them to work safely and effectively. There was also an up to date staff handbook that all staff were given and also staff were informed when there were any updates.

People's GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice about people’s health needs whenever necessary and when people requested their support.

The provider had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. We saw there were policies and procedures in place and training to guide staff in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults.

The service had quality assurance processes in place including service user questionnaires. The service’s policies and procedures had been reviewed and updated in 2018 by the provider and these included policies on health and safety, confidentiality, mental capacity, medication, whistle blowing, safeguarding and recruitment.

People told us they were happy with the staff and felt that the staff understood their care and support needs. The six people we spoke with and four relatives had no complaints about the service. The provider had a complaints procedure in place and this was available in the ‘Service User Guide’ and in place at the homes of the three people we visited.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was safe

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place and staff had received training about safeguarding people.

Staff had been recruited safely. Appropriate recruitment, disciplinary and other employment policies were in place.

Staff had received training about medication handling and managed people�s medication safely when required.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was effective

Staff were appropriately inducted and received ongoing training. They also had regular supervision meetings and an annual appraisal.

People had given consent for care to be provided and the service had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider provided initial assessment visits where people�s needs were looked at and family were included in assessing and creating a personalised care and support plan.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was caring.

Confidentiality of people�s care files and personal information was respected.

People told us that their dignity and privacy were respected when staff provided care and supported them and staff showed a regard for people�s individuality.

People told us that there was good communication between them and the service and staff understood them and their needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was responsive.

Suitable processes were in place to deal with complaints appropriately and people�s comments and complaints were taken seriously and investigated.

People who used the service told us they were involved in their plan of care and where appropriate, their support needs were assessed with them and their relatives or representatives.

Care plans were reviewed regularly and there were records of communication with other professionals including people�s visits to or by medical professionals.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was well-led.

Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure the service provided safe and good care and people who used the service had opportunities to express their views.

The registered manager was effective and had clear roles and responsibilities for all staff.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission.