You are here

Reedsfield Care Ltd Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Reedsfield Care Ltd. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 19 May 2018

This inspection took place on 21 and 22 March 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection for this service since registering with CQC in March 2017.

Reedsfield Care Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. They provide hourly support to people within their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people receiving personal care. The service provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, people with physical disabilities and people with long term medical conditions.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

There was not always robust governance at the service. We identified issues that the provider had identified through audits but these had not been addressed. Records relating to people’s medicines contained gaps and despite these having been identified in audits, they had not been addressed by the time of our visit. We also found that some information in people’s care records lacked detail and that negative feedback about time keeping identified in surveys had not been addressed.

We also found some records relating to individual risks lacked guidance for staff. Shortfalls in medicines records meant that medicines management was not always safe. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People were supported by staff that had the training to carry out their roles. Staff told us that they felt supported by management and had regular supervision meetings. Staff were trained in best practice with regards to infection control and were knowledgeable in this area. Staff met regularly to discuss care delivery and the registered manager had an open door policy. We did receive some negative feedback about staff punctuality. We made a recommendation about staff deployment.

Risks to people were assessed and managed safely. Where people had suffered incidents, such as falls, staff took appropriate action and the provider kept a record of these and analysed them. Staff understood their roles in safeguarding people from abuse and were knowledgeable about people’s needs. People were provided care in a way that promoted their independence and they received person-centred care. However, we did find instances where records lacked detail. We made a recommendation about care planning.

People were supported by kind and caring staff that they got along well with. Staff were respectful when entering people’s homes and provided care in a way that preserved people’s dignity and was respectful of their privacy. People were given choices by staff and involved in their care. Staff sought consent from people and this was documented. We did find one instance where documentation was not up to date for a person who could not consent. We made a recommendation about consent records.

People received a thorough assessment before they received a service and people’s care was regularly reviewed. Staff met people’s nutritional needs and supported people to access healthcare professionals where appropriate. People were regularly asked for feedback on the care that they received there was a clear complaints policy in place. Where people had raised a complaint, the provider had investigated these appropriately and identified actions to address concerns.

The provider carried out checks on all new staff to ensure they were suitable for their roles. There was a vision for the service and the provider had developed links with the local community. There was a plan to ensure that people’s care could continue in the event of an emergency.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

People’s medicines were not managed safely and records were not accurate. There was not always sufficient information in risk management plans.

Incidents were responded to appropriately and analysed.

Staff understood their roles in safeguarding and observed safe infection control practices.

Staff were deployed in a way that meant people received their care as planned. The provider carried out appropriate checks to ensure that staff were suitable for their roles.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and regular supervision to support them in their roles.

People’s consent was sought in line with legislation, but we found shortfalls in documentation for one person. We made a recommendation in this area.

People were supported to maintain adequate nutrition and staff liaised with healthcare professionals where appropriate.

People received a thorough assessment before they received a service.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff that they got along well with.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence. People were involved in their care and supported to make choices.

People were supported by respectful staff that maintained privacy and dignity when providing care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People’s care was planned in a person-centred way. However, we identified areas where information lacked detail. We made a recommendation about care planning.

People’s care was regularly reviewed and staff responded appropriately to changes in people’s needs.

The provider documented and responded to complaints appropriately.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Where audits, checks and surveys were identifying shortfalls, these were not being robustly addressed. People's feedback on time-keeping was not being addressed.

The provider carried out a variety of checks and surveys to monitor care quality.

Staff felt supported by management and were involved in the running of the service.

The provider had a vision for the service and a plan to improve. We saw evidence of links with the wider community that people benefitted from.