You are here

Serenity Integrated Care Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

We carried out this announced inspection on 13 November 2018. Serenity Integrated Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults with physical disabilities.

At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to one person. Not everyone using the service receives 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.

At our last inspection in May 2018 we were unable to rate the service. Breaches of regulations were found. This was because the service was not safely managing medicines or following safer recruitment processes. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to tell us what they would do to address these breaches.

At this inspection we found that the provider was now meeting regulations. We have rated them ‘good’. When services are rated ‘good’ we aim to return within 30 months to complete a further inspection. CQC monitors services and will return before this time if we have reason to think the rating of this service has changed.

The service had a registered manager. 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 were now recruited in line with safer recruitment standards. Staff rotas were planned in a way which allowed them to meet people’s needs safely.

Risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and mitigated through appropriate risk management plans. Where people had hoists, the provider took the right steps to ensure that this was done safely. People were safeguarded from abuse as care workers understood the possible signs of abuse and their responsibilities to report their concerns. People were screened for nutritional risks and suitable plans were in place to protect people from malnutrition.

Medicines were safely managed by staff who had the skills to do so. Care workers received suitable training and supervision to carry out their roles and the registered manager had checked that they were competent. Incidents were investigated in an open and honest way which promoted learning from when things had gone wrong.

People told us of the caring service that they received and care workers responded effectively to people’s needs. People’s care needs were assessed and there were detailed plans to meet people’s needs in a way which met their preferences. Care workers documented how they had met these and how they had worked to ensure that these were met and that people were safe and comfortable.

Care workers worked with health services to promote good health and to respond effectively to changes in a person’s health status and to avoid hospital admission wherever possible. The provider had a policy in place to ensure that they worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

The provider was not routinely recording as part of their assessments when people required information supplied to them in accessible formats in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We have made a recommendation about this.

Managers had worked to improve and develop the service and were accessible. The registered manager carried out regular checks to ensure people were happy with their service and could contact the manager if they had a concern or complaint.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to detect and report signs of suspected abuse. Risks to people were assessed with risk mitigation plans in place.

Care workers were recruited in line with safer recruitment processes.

Medicines were safely managed by care workers who had the right skills to do so.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was effective.

Care workers received suitable training and supervision and the provider checked that they were competent in caring for people.

People were protected from the risk of malnutrition and received support to maintain their health.

There were processes in place to ensure people had consented to their care, but the provider didn�t always verify why people were signing on their behalf.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was caring.

People�s views were obtained of their care. People told us their care workers were kind and dedicated.

Care workers recorded the actions they took to keep people comfortable.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care was planned in a way which met their needs and preferences. Care workers demonstrated how they had met these and how they had responded to changes in people�s needs.

The provider did not routinely flag up people�s needs for information in accessible formats.

People were able to contact a manager to complain if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 December 2018

The service was well led.

There were systems in place to ensure continuous improvement and promote accountability.

The registered manager reviewed the quality of the service and ensured people were happy with the care they received.