You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 September 2017

The inspection took place on 14 August 2017 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intended visit to ensure someone would be available in the office to meet us. Pechiv Care Services provides support to people in their own homes within the Oxfordshire area. On the day of the inspection, five people were using the service.

The service was last inspected on 2 January 2017. During that inspection we found the provider did not have systems in place to assess the quality of the service provided. We also found not all risk assessments contained detailed guidance for staff on how to manage risks. We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activity) Regulation 2014. We imposed a condition on the provider’s registration to submit monthly audits to the CQC to ensure the quality of the service was being monitored.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made. Systems were in place to monitor and analyse the quality of the service. Guidance around risks had been improved.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had training and were checked to ensure they continued to be competent when administering medicines.

People who used the service felt safe and relatives had confidence in the ability of staff to keep people safe. Staff had received training on safeguarding adults and understood their responsibilities. Risks were assessed by the provider when someone first started using the service, and reviewed thereafter.

Recruitment processes were designed to ensure only suitable staff were selected to work with people. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of people who currently used the service.

New staff received a five-day induction, as well as shadowing opportunities. During this time staff had mandatory training such as moving and handling techniques, food hygiene, and topics such as: handling medication and first aid.

Staff were supported through annual appraisals and a number of supervisions throughout the year. Staff told us that they felt supported by the registered manager and that communication was effective.

Staff were aware of their duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They obtained people's consent before carrying out care tasks and followed legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent.

People who used the service and relatives consistently told us staff were caring, patient and upheld people’s dignity. People confirmed staff encouraged them to retain their independence on a day-to-day basis.

People felt consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered. Care plans were personalised and centred on people's preferences, views and experiences as well as their care and support needs.

People who used the service knew how to complain, and who to. Complaints were investigated and responses given.

The registered manager was described in positive terms by people who used the service and relatives.

Auditing and quality assurance systems took place to monitor the quality of the service so that action could be taken where identified.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 September 2017

The service was safe.

People's individual risks had been identified and guidance was in place so staff could support people safely.

Medicines administration training took place with observations to ensure staff competence.

Staff received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report concerns.

Pre-employment checks of staff ensured the risk of employing someone unsuitable to work with vulnerable people was reduced.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 September 2017

The service was effective.

New staff received a range of mandatory training and shadowing support prior to supporting people who used the service.

Staff felt supported in their roles.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 September 2017

The service was caring.

People complimented staff and their caring attitude.

People’s dignity and privacy was respected.

People’s independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People were involved in care planning process.

People told us they received appropriate support that responded well to their needs.

People knew how to complain and were confident any concerns would be appropriately responded to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2017

The service was working on embedding and sustaining improvements to be well-led.

Auditing and quality assurance processes were in place.

People who used the service and their relatives had confidence about the leadership of the service, as were staff.