You are here

Star Care UK Limited Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 July 2018

We carried out this announced inspection on 21 March 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that staff would be at the office. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2017.

Star Care UK Limited provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to adults including people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs. The service mainly provides personal care for people during scheduled visits at key times of the day as well as supporting people with their medicines and meals. At the time of our inspection 79 people were receiving a personal care service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Registered providers must notify the CQC about certain changes, events and incidents that affect their service or the people who use it. The provider did not notify CQC of notifiable events such as allegations of abuse. This meant the provider did not enable the CQC to have full oversight of the risks associated with the service.

People were satisfied with the care they received, although some people told us that the service was not always reliable. Staff did not always arrive on time for their scheduled visits and on occasion had not turned up at all.

Staff knew the people they supported well. People who needed help taking their medicines were appropriately supported by staff. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. They knew how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected.

Staff treated people with respect and asked people how they wanted their care and support to be provided. People’s rights were protected by staff who understood the main principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were involved in their care planning and how their care was provided.

People’s care plans provided staff with direction and guidance about how to meet people’s individual needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed and any changes in people’s needs were communicated to staff. Assessments were carried out to identify any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included any environmental risks in people’s homes and any risks in relation to the care and support needs of the person.

Appropriate checks were carried out on staff before they began to work with people to ensure that only applicants suitable for the role were employed. Staff received relevant training and supervision. However staff supervision consistent was inconsistent.

There were systems in place to obtain people's views about the quality of care they received. However, they were inconsistent. People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to seek people's views about the service. However these systems were not as effective as they needed to be.

We found breaches of the regulations in relation to the provider's failure to establish and operate effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of care people received and the provider's failure to notify the CQC of notifiable events. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 July 2018

Some aspects of the service were not safe.

Staff were sometimes late to support people and this impacted the quality and safety of the care people received.

Risks to people were assessed and staff had guidance on how to manage the risks identified

Staff were recruited using an appropriate recruitment process which was consistently applied.

Medicines were effectively managed. Although the systems in place to review medicine administration records required improvement.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care people required. However, staff supervision was inconsistent.

Staff understood the main provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to maintain their health. People who required it were supported to have a sufficient amount to eat and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and treated people with respect. People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well.

People were supported by staff to be as independent as they could and wanted to be. People were involved in their care planning and in making decisions about their care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People were satisfied with the quality of care they received except for the fact that staff sometimes arrived late. People's care plans were accurate and up to date.

The system in place for obtaining people's feedback was not well organised. People knew how to make a complaint and felt able to do so.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 July 2018

Some aspects of the service were not well-led.

The systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care people received were not as effective as they needed to be.

The provider failed to submit statutory notifications to the CQC.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities.