You are here

Archived: Kingfisher Care (Midlands) Ltd Requires improvement Also known as Stella Care Limited

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 3 and 11 November 2015

During a routine inspection

We made an announced inspection of the service on 3 November 2015 and returned announced on 11 November 2015.

Kingfisher Care (Midlands) Limited is a small home care agency providing personal care to people who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 14 people were using the service. During our inspection we learnt that the service was transferring its office from 8 Robinson Way, Burbage to Unit 35, Sparkenhoe Business Centre, Southfields Road, Hinckley LE10 1UB. We advised the provider that they were required to formally notify the Care Quality Commission of the change to their location.

The service had a registered manager until they resigned in October 2015. 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. An interim manager was appointed to manage the service pending the appointment of a registered manager.

People using the service were safe because staff understood their responsibilities for safeguarding people from abuse and avoidable harm. However, the provider had identified that people’s care plans and risk assessments associated with people’s care routines were not always accurate or up to date. The provider had commenced a comprehensive review of all care plans.

The provider had effective recruitment procedures which they improvised during the period the service was left with few care workers. This enabled the provider to have enough care workers to cover scheduled home care visits. New staff with existing Disclosure Barring Service checks were allowed to support people after appropriate risk assessments were carried out. 

The provider was able to deploy enough staff to make all scheduled home care visits, though not all visits were made at times people expected during October 2015. There had been an occasion in October 2015 when an untrained care worker was involved in administration of medicine, but no harm was caused to the person using the service.

People using the service were mainly supported by staff who understood their needs. However, during October 2015 when there was a high turnover of staff people felt they were supported by inexperienced staff. Staff had varied awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s care plans contained no information about whether they were presumed to have capacity to make decisions about their care or whether decisions about their care were made for them in their best interests. The provider was addressing this omission.

People using the service received support with meals. Care workers helped people prepare meals or they heated pre-pared meals for people. Care workers supported people to access health services if a need was identified during a care worker’s visit.

People told us that staff were caring. People developed caring relationships with care workers they had become accustomed to, but since several had left in October 2015 this process had restarted. The provider had procedures for involving people in decisions about their care and support. During our conversations with people, none said anything to suggest staff had not treated them with respect. However, two people’s privacy was not respected when staff made an unscheduled and unexpected visit that upset them.

People using the service contributed to the assessments of their needs when they first began to use the service and when their care plan was reviewed. The provider had begun a comprehensive review of all people’s care plans after identifying inaccuracies in a person’s care plan about how they needed to be supported.

People were able to raise concerns about the service. They were listened to and the provider acted upon what people said. The provider used an annual survey to obtain people’s feedback about the service.

The provider kept people using the service informed of operational difficulties that affected how the service was delivered. People using the service and staff had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. The provider had reviewed their arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service after previous arrangements had lapsed. These arrangements were in their early stages but they were recognising signs of improvement.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

The provider supplied us with a quality survey which demonstrated people who used the service and their representatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment. We noted the survey asked for views on staff, care service monitoring, complaints, documentation, service consultation and management.

The provider demonstrated to us that accidents and incidents were reported. We saw a comprehensive accident record which detailed when, where and how accidents had occurred. The provider also documented what action and after care was required to prevent reoccurrence of the incident.

Inspection carried out on 6 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service, one carer, and two members of staff. We also reviewed three care records and two staff files.

We spoke with three people who used the service and one carer and asked them if the provider included them in the planning and development of their care and support plan. All told us they had. One person who used the service told us: “I knew what I was looking for and have been involved in the planning and delivery of care from the start”.

One person told us:” The care I receive is very good. They could not do anymore for me”. Their response indicated that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person told us:” I feel totally safe in their hands”.

The manager had received appropriate professional development and had obtained further relevant qualifications, such as national vocational qualifications.

We asked to see any audits or reviews carried out to demonstrate the quality of service provided was regularly assessed and monitored. The manager was unable to show that regular monitoring took place.