You are here

ASK4CARE - Huddersfield Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The inspection took place on 18 July 2018 and was announced. On 20 July 2018 we also contacted staff, people using the service and their relatives by telephone to gain feedback about the service. The service was first registered on 10 July 2017 and this was their first ratings inspection.

ASK4CARE- Huddersfield is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. On the days of our inspection 36 people were receiving support.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People told us they felt safe with staff from ASK4CARE- Huddersfield. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard adults from abuse.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities if they were concerned a person was at risk of harm. Care files contained individual risk assessments to reduce risks to people’s safety and welfare.

An electronic call monitoring system, to alert office based staff in the event a person’s call had been missed, was in place and this was monitored.

People told us staff were usually on time and were not rushed. Two people’s relatives told us their relation would prefer more consistency of care staff, although appreciated this was not always possible. Staff recruitment was safe.

A system was in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way for people. All medicine administration records (MARs) were routinely audited on return to the office to enable any concerns to be addressed promptly. Staff were trained and supported to ensure they were competent to administer medicines.

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. We saw evidence people had given their consent to the care and support they were receiving. For two people, who may lack the mental capacity to consent to their care plans, evidence of mental capacity assessment and best interest discussions needed to be improved.

We made a recommendation about this. The registered provider implemented this straight away.

New staff were supported in their role, which included training and shadowing a more experienced staff member. We saw evidence staff had received regular on-going training in a variety of subjects. Staff received regular supervision and field based observations of their performance.

People received support with meals and drinks if this was part of their care plan. Staff knew how to access relevant healthcare professionals if their input was required. The service worked in partnership with other organisations and healthcare professionals to improve people’s outcomes.

People told us staff were caring and supported them in a way that maintained their dignity and privacy. People were supported to be as independent as possible throughout their daily lives.

Individual needs were assessed and met through the development of personalised care plans, which considered people’s equality and diversity needs and preferences.

Systems were in place to ensure complaints were encouraged, explored and responded to. People told us they knew what to do if they had any concerns or complaints about the service.

Everyone told us the service was well led. The registered manager had an effective system of governance in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

People who used the service and their relatives were asked for their views about the service and these were acted on.

Further information is in the detailed findings be

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who delivered their care.

There were risk assessments in place which ensured the care and environment was safe for both people who used the service and staff.

Systems of staff recruitment were safe.

Staff were trained in medicine administration.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was not always effective.

Staff supported people�s right to make choices and decisions. Where people may lack mental capacity to consent, records of mental capacity assessments and best interest discussions needed to improve.

Staff received regular training, spot checks, supervision and appraisals to ensure they were able to perform their role effectively.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was caring.

People and their families told us staff were kind and caring.

Staff respected people�s privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged to make choices and retain and improve their independence where possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Care was planned to meet people�s individual needs and preferences.

People and their representatives were involved in the development and the review of their support plans.

People told us they knew how to complain and that staff were always approachable.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was well led.

The registered manager and the registered provider were involved in the day to day running of the organisation.

There were systems in place to regularly seek feedback from people who used the service.

Staffs performance was regularly monitored.