• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: United Response - Derby City DCA 2

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Genesis Centre, 32-46 King Street, Alfreton, Derbyshire, DE55 7DQ (01773) 417793

Provided and run by:
United Response

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

2 July 2018

During a routine inspection

United Response Derby City DCA 2 is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to adults with a learning disability living in their own houses and flats. Some people lived in a large building that was divided into one-bedroom flats. One of these flats was used as a communal flat with an office and communal lounge and kitchen area. This communal flat was accessible to people that lived in the flats and to staff. Three other people lived in a house together. Not everyone that lived in the flats received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate the premises that people lived in; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. The aim of the guidance is to assist services in enabling people with learning disabilities and autism using the service to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

We inspected this service on 2 July 2018. This inspection was announced. This meant the provider and staff knew we would be visiting the service’s office before we arrived. There were nine people in receipt of personal care support at the time of this inspection visit.

There had been no registered manager in post since 25 January 2018. 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. A person was in post to oversee the management of the service but they were absent from work at the time of the inspection and another person was providing management support.

This is the first inspection since the service registered on the 14 July 2015. The service moved their office base in May 2017. At this inspection we found that some improvements were needed regarding the support provided to people that lived in the flats and these were being addressed by the provider and the provider was reviewing people’s care packages with funding partners.

For people that lived together in a shared house no concerns were identified at this inspection.

The provider had informed us of the last registered manager’s absence but we had not received a notification informing us that the registered manager was no longer in post. This is a legal requirement. The area manager told us they had sent a notification to us, but they were unable to provide evidence of this. The registered manager had not cancelled their registration with us when they resigned from their position.

The provider had identified issues regarding the support in place for people in the flats. They had identified that the culture in the service that supported people in the flats required improvement to ensure it achieved good outcomes for people. They had taken the appropriate action and were working with commissioners to address these concerns and ensure people received the support they needed. Information regarding these improvements is detailed in this summary.

Sufficient numbers of care staff had been deployed to complete care calls in the right way; however, the provider had identified that some staff were not always following this practice for people that were supported in the flats. This meant that some people were not receiving their support at the agreed time, which meant that the support provided was not always responsive to their needs. The provider was addressing this at the time of this inspection.

The provider had also identified that some staff who were supporting a person that used Makaton had not received training and this was being organised. Makaton is used to support hearing people with learning or communication difficulties using signs and symbols.

Processes were in place to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse. We saw the provider took the appropriate action when concerns were identified. Risks to people’s safety was assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected.

People were supported to take their medicines in a safe way. Background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. People were protected by the arrangements to prevent and control infection and lessons had been learnt when things had gone wrong.

People received the assistance they needed to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to live healthier lives and access healthcare services and on-going healthcare support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The importance of gaining people’s consent to the support they received was understood by the staff team. Staff knew about people’s individual capacity to make decisions and supported them to make their own decisions. Where people were unable to make certain decisions, the staff ensured that best interest decisions were made in accordance with legislation.

People were supported to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. This included access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept securely and only accessible to authorised persons.

People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to, to improve the quality of care. Care staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns about people not being treated in the right way. In addition, the provider was actively working in partnership with other agencies to ensure people’s needs were effectively met. People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to express their views of the service to enable the provider to drive improvement.

The provider’s systems to monitor and review the quality of care people received had identified where improvements were needed and actions were being taken to address these.