You are here

Archived: Empathy Care Services Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 May 2017

Empathy Nursing and Social Care provides personal care and treatment for adults and children living in their own homes. On the day of the inspection the registered manager informed us that there were a total of 18 people receiving care from the service.

A registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The previous inspection was carried out in March 2016 to follow up Warning Notices issued at the comprehensive inspection of November 2015 with regard to providing safe care and ensuring a quality service. We found the warning notices had been complied with. At the last comprehensive inspection of November 2015, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to people’s personal care, and this action has largely been completed.

People and relatives we spoke with told us they thought the service ensured that people received safe personal care. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and staff understood their responsibilities in this area.

We saw that medicines were, in the main, supplied safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs though improvements to records were needed.

Risk assessments were not always comprehensively in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.

Staff had received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs, though this had not always covered some relevant issues.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives, though assessments of people's capacity had not been in place to ensure people's ability to make decisions was comprehensively protected.

People and relatives we spoke with all told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. They told us they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet care needs.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service to ensure that their needs were met, though they did not include all relevant information such as people's past histories.

People and relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns, they were confident these would be properly followed up. Evidence of complaints made had not always showed they had been properly investigated.

People and their relatives were satisfied with how the service was run. Staff felt they were supported in their work by the senior management of the service.

Management carried out audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service, though action was not always shown to be taken for some issues.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 May 2017

The service was safe.

People and their relatives thought that staff provided safe care and that people felt safe with staff from the service. Staff recruitment checks had been place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff. Risk assessments to protect people's health and welfare had not been fully in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare. People received assistance to take their prescribed medicines, though recording of this had not been robust.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 May 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained to meet people's care needs though further training on specific issues was needed. Staff had received support to carry out their role of providing effective care to meet people's needs. People's consent to care and treatment was sought but this had not been assesses and staff had not been trained to ensure this was in line with legislation and guidance. People's nutritional needs had been promoted and protected. People's health needs had been met by staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 May 2017

The service was caring.

People and relatives we spoke with told us that staff were kind, friendly and caring and respected people’s rights. There was evidence that most people and their relatives had been involved in setting up care plans that reflected people's needs. Staff respected people's privacy, independence and dignity.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 11 May 2017

The service was not fully responsive.

Care calls were not always at agreed times to meet people's assessed care needs. People said their needs had been responded to. Care plans contained information on how staff should respond to people's assessed needs, though information on people's histories was limited. People and their relatives were confident that any concerns they had would be properly followed up by the registered manager, though the complaints process has not always been followed. Staff had contacted other relevant services when people needed additional support.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 May 2017

The service was well led.

People and the relative we spoke with thought the service was well managed and well led. Staff told us the senior management staff provided good support to them. They said the registered manager had a clear vision and expectation of how friendly individual care was to be provided to people to meet their needs. Systems had been audited in order to measure whether a quality service had been provided, though action had not always been identified to deal with all issues raised.