You are here

Archived: Adaiah Care Ltd

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 March 2013
Date of Publication: 27 April 2013
Inspection Report published 27 April 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 March 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

People did not experience care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection. We spoke with three of these people and two relatives. People told us that, overall they were happy with the service they currently received. However, they told us that they were concerned about what would happen if their current carer was no longer able to support them. A relative told us “My mother’s carer is wonderful. We worry what would happen if the carer left.”

People's needs were assessed by the provider prior to them using the service. People told us that they had been actively involved in this process. We reviewed the care and support plans of three people using the service. These had been written in a way that both people using the service and the carer supporting them could understand. Care plans included information about people's mental and physical health needs, social care needs and their preferences regarding their daily lives. Risk assessments were in place. These identified the risks to people using the service and the carer who supported them.

We asked the carer about the people they looked after. They had a good understanding of people's needs and what they needed to do to meet these needs. They told us that they had read people's care plans and documented the care that they had provided.

People told us that, up until recently, they had experienced a high number of occasions when their care and support needs had not been met. This was because staff had not been available to support them at the agreed times. They also told us that staff had not spent as much time providing support as had been agreed. A relative told us “Staff were not available to make sure that my mother received her medication properly. I was so concerned that I had to ask her neighbour to go into her house each evening to check that she had taken her medication.” People told us that the number of ‘missed calls’ had reduced recently.

It was of concern that the electronic care rostering system identified that people were not receiving care and support at the times agreed with the local authority, who funded their care. For example, it had been agreed that three people received support at 13:00 hours and two people received support at 17:00 hours. However, only one carer was available to attend to all of these thirty minute calls. This meant that people did not receive care and support in a timely manner, at the agreed times.

One person told us that they would like their lunch time call half an hour earlier, at the time that was agreed when they first started using the service. They told us that this was because they were hungry by the time that the carer arrived. They told us that if the carer was running late, they had to serve their own lunch or their meal would be ruined. They told us that this put them at risk of scalding themselves. In addition to other support needs most people using the service required assistance with medication. Without staff support at the agreed times, this meant that people did not receive their medicines at the prescribed times.

The provider told us that there were arrangements in place for people to contact the agency in the event of an emergency, for example if their carer did not arrive. People using the service told us that they had this number and also the number of their carer. However, during our inspection, we found that it was difficult to contact the provider on any of the numbers provided. A delay in response may place a person at risk of harm in an emergency situation. The local authority also told us that they had received concerns of a similar nature from people using the service and their relatives.