Archived: Harley Street Care

Updated 1 October 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 10 and 17 August 2015 and was announced. We told the provider three days before our visit that we would be coming. This was because senior staff are sometimes away from the office location visiting people who use the service and supporting care staff; we needed to be sure that someone would be available. The inspection team comprised two inspectors on the first day and one inspector on the second day.

Before the inspection visit we read the information we held about the service. This included the previous inspection report, which showed that the service met the regulations we inspected on 27 September 2013. We also checked statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about significant incidents and events that had occurred at the service, which the provider is required to send to us by law.

As part of the inspection we spoke with the representative of one person who used the service and the representatives of two other people sent us written comments. During the inspection we met the care manager, the care co-ordinator, the managing director and a director. We spoke by telephone with two care staff. We checked records which included four care plans, five staff recruitment and training files, the complaints log, the safeguarding vulnerable people policy and procedure, and the whistleblowing policy.

We contacted community health and social care professionals with knowledge about the service and received comments from one professional.

Updated 1 October 2015

The inspection took place on 10 and 17 August 2015 and was announced. We gave 72 hours’ notice of the inspection to make sure the staff we needed to speak with were available at the location.

Harley Street Care is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care services to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection there were 12 people receiving a service.

The service did not have 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.

The provider carried out a range of checks to ensure that suitable staff were recruited; however, some references were not verified in order to make sure they were authentic. This meant people could have been placed at risk from recruitment that was not sufficiently robust.

People’s representatives told us that people felt safe with the staff. Systems were in place to make sure that people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of the provider’s safeguarding policy and procedure, and understood how to identify and report any safeguarding concerns.

Risk assessments had been carried out and staff received guidance about how to minimise the risk of harm occurring.

There were sufficient staff employed and people’s representatives told us the provider ensured people received care from regular care staff who clearly understood their needs and preferences.

Medicines were safely administered by staff with training, and support from the care manager.

People’s representatives told us staff shared information about a person’s care, with their consent. People’s rights were upheld as required by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. This law provides a framework to protect people who do not have capacity to give their consent or make certain decisions for themselves. Staff had received guidance about MCA during their induction.

Staff supported people with their nutritional needs and the provider liaised with health care professionals when required, in order to ensure people’s needs were properly met.

Staff were described as being kind, gentle and patient. They demonstrated an understanding of how to support people in a respectful way that promoted people’s dignity and privacy.

People’s representatives told us that the provider consulted people about their preferences and wishes as part of the care planning and reviewing process.

Information was given to people about how to make a complaint.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and seek people’s views. This included regular visits to people, telephone calls and auditing of people’s daily records.