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 | 94.27 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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

The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. The provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

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. One person told us that they were happy with the quality of service they received. However, other people told us that they had concerns about the quality and reliability of the service. People using the service told us “There has been a lot of problems with the quality of service I receive. Some of this still needs sorting out.”

We spoke with the provider about arrangements in place for quality monitoring and they acknowledged that improvements were needed in respect of the provider undertaking audits of the quality of the service provided. The audits used were not robust or effective. For example, the provider told us that they had audited the number of ‘missed calls’ and had identified that incidences of these had reduced recently. The provider had shared information about this with the local authority. However, the provider also told us that records detailing people’s care and the medication administration records were checked when they had been returned to the office from the homes of people using the service. During our inspection we found that there were a number of shortfalls regarding this documentation. For example, we identified that the personal information on one person’s care plan had been partly completed and there were gaps on another person’s medication administration record. The provider had not identified these shortfalls when they had carried out their own checks.

People using the service and their relatives had limited opportunities to express their views about the service they received from the agency. The provider had begun to undertake quality monitoring visits at people’s homes. She told us that these would be undertaken for all people using the service and that service satisfaction surveys would be given to people during these visits.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. A complaints policy was in place. Information about how people could raise concerns was included in the ‘statement of purpose’ and this was given to people when they first started to use the service. This had been written in a way that people using the service would understand. People told us that they felt confident that they could raise any concerns they had regarding the service provided and that actions had been taken in response to any concerns they had raised. A relative of a person using the service told us “My dad would be confident to raise any concerns with the agency if needed.”

We looked at the record of complaints received since the agency opened in February 2012. A small number of complaints had been received and most of these related to ‘missed calls’ from the staff team formerly employed by the provider. In response to this, the provider had sought an alternative way to provide care and support cover. However, people’s care and support needs were still not being met in a timely manner.

There were no arrangements in place to monitor the performance of the carer who supported people using the service. The provider acknowledged that actions were needed to address this, in order to ensure that people were receiving the care and support they needed.

Whilst checking the electronic call rostering system it was evident that the provider was not aware that the carer was needed to support more than one person at the same time. The call rostering system was also incomplete in that not all people using the service were included on the system. This meant that there was no way to monitor that calls were being made to all of the people using the service at the agreed times and there was a risk that some people using the service could be missed.