The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Ark Home Healthcare Leeds

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

2 Church Court, Morley, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS27 9TN (0113) 205 2990

Provided and run by:
Ark Home Healthcare Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

To Be Confirmed

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 28 January 2015. A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to people’s consent to care and treatment.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Ark Home Healthcare on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Ark Home Healthcare is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes in Leeds and surrounding areas. Ark Home Healthcare provides assistance and support to people to help them maintain and improve their independence.

At the time of our inspection the service did not have a registered manager; however, the manager had submitted an application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

Staff told us they have received safeguarding training which included the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The manager told us all staff would be completing the care certificate training and this was due to commence at the beginning of August 2015. The first module would include the Mental Capacity Act (2005).The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and to report on what we find. We found the Mental Capacity Act (2005) legislation was taken into account when providing care to people.

28 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an announced inspection carried out on 28 January 2015.

Ark Home Healthcare is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes in Leeds and surrounding areas. Ark Home Healthcare provides assistance and support to people to help them maintain and improve their independence.

At the time of our inspection the service had a registered manager. However, they were no longer in day to day control of the service. The service had a new manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

It was not clear from the care and support plans we looked at that people had received an appropriate and decision specific mental capacity assessment which would ensure the rights of people who lacked the mental capacity to make decisions were respected.

The manager did not have a fully operational mechanism for monitoring staff training. However, they were in the process of arranging staff supervisions and appraisals in line with the service’s policy.

All staff had completed training on how to use the medication system and all of the people we spoke with said they were satisfied with the way in which they were supported with this task. However, there was no ‘as and when’ guidance in place to help support and direct staff when this type of medication should be given.

We found there were enough staff employed by the service to meet people’s needs. Staff had been employed following standard recruitment policies and procedures and had induction training before they commenced work unaccompanied. However, people who used the service had concerns regarding the use of agency staff and there were mixed views from people in regards to call times being adhered to.

Overall, people who used the service were happy with the staff and they got on well with them. However, some people we spoke with were not so complimentary. Some people we spoke with did not always know which member of staff would be visiting them.

The management team investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure. However, this was not always timely.

People told us they felt safe whilst staff were delivering care in their home. We found staff had a good knowledge of how to keep people safe from harm and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us they were satisfied with the support they received with their meals and drinks.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made.

People were involved in developing their plan of care and had their own copy. Staff recorded what they had done at each visit. People told us they were happy with the support they received from care workers.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The care plans included risk assessments.

People told us they had good relationships with staff members and staff knew how to respect their privacy and dignity.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the manager and the regional manager.

We found the service was in breach of one of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

1 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 12 people who used the service and five relatives. People told us they were happy with the care provided and felt the carers understood their needs. People made the following comments about the staff:

'I'm happy with the care.'

'They do very well.'

'They listen to me.'

'Very caring. Lovely.'

'They always check, is there anything else you want doing.'

The staff we spoke with gave good examples of how they involved people in their care and they were clear it was a person's choice and right to refuse care. We looked at a sample of three care records and saw each person had a care plan and risk assessment which covered their needs. We saw evidence that the care records were reviewed and that people had been involved with the reviews.

We looked at how new staff were recruited. This included a review of four staff records. We saw that a structured recruitment process had been followed. However, we considered more rigorous reference checks could be undertaken, where it was not possible to obtain a reference from a person's previous employer.

We found the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

The four members of staff we spoke with said they were aware of the complaints policy and explained to us what they would do if a complaint was made. All the people we spoke with told us they knew how to make a complaint.

20 June 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency as part of a targeted inspection programme of domiciliary care agencies with particular regard to how people's dignity was upheld and how they can make choices about their care.

We used postal surveys, telephone interviews and home visits to people who use the service and to their main carers (a relative or friends) to gain views about the service.

We spoke with 15 people on the telephone who received a service from this agency. People told us that they were happy with the quality of care they received and were treated with dignity and respect. Everyone we spoke with said they had a care plan and had been involved in devising how their care should be provided. People thought that they received a service which was personalised and met their individual needs. People told us that the service was 'brilliant' and care staff were 'very helpful.'

We visited four people in their home who received a service from this agency. Everybody we met with including three relatives were happy with the service. People told us that they felt safe and knew how to contact the agency should they have any concerns. One person told us, "I can't fault anybody." Another person told us, "On the whole they are very good."

We received 31 responses to a total of 300 questionnaires which we sent out to people using the service and their relatives. The majority (82%) rated the care they received as good or excellent.