• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Caring Souls Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Unit 2, Woodside Business Park, Thetford Road, Ingham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP31 1NR (01284) 728348

Provided and run by:
Caring Souls Ltd

All Inspections

8 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Caring Souls Ltd is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care.

CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection there were 67 people using the service, 64 of these were receiving support with personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We identified shortfalls in the management of people’s medicines and a failure to robustly assess the risks to people’s safety and welfare.

People received support from caring staff, but improvement was needed to ensure staff responsible for administering medicines had been assessed as competent to do so.

Staff were aware of some risks to people's safety and wellbeing and acted to minimise these risks. However, risk management plans did not always provide the guidance staff needed to keep people safe from the risk of harm. This included risk management plans for people at risk of falls, skin damage and continence care.

We recommended the provider consider in their assessment of risks to staff and people who use the service from acquiring COVID-19, the advice from the Social Care Working Group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). This group have advised that an uptake rate of 80% in staff in each service would be needed to provide a minimum level of protection against outbreaks of COVID-19.

People told us there was enough staff to meet their needs. The provider carried out safety checks such as Disclosure and Barring checks [DBS]. However, it was not always evident that gaps in employment history had been explored and references obtained evidenced as from the most recent employer. We recommended the provider take action to explore any gaps in employment, confirm last employer checks obtained, and a record of their findings maintained.

The provider had a quality assurance system which had identified improvement needed in areas such as staff supervision, spot checks on staff performance, care plan reviews, risk management and feedback surveys. Action plans in response demonstrated how the provider planned to improve the service with timescales.

There had been management changes in recent months. This had impacted on staff morale. However, care staff felt things had improved, and told us they felt supported. The provider had made changes and improvements in some areas, such as recruitment of care coordinators to improve oversight of the service. They were keen to make further improvements, taking action to address the issues in relation to risk management, auditing, staff supervision and performance checks.

People were generally satisfied with the service they received. They felt able to raise any concerns and were confident these would be acted on. People and relatives confirmed staff always wore personal protective equipment (PPE).

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff knew how to raise any issues. The provider worked with other agencies and professionals to meet people's needs.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 1 September 2018).

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by our monitoring data and intelligence which indicated potential risks. In particular, concerns in relation to oversight and management. In response we undertook this focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

The overall rating for the service has changed from Good to Requires Improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection. We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.

The provider took action straightaway in response to our feedback. They sent a further update shortly after the inspection about progress they had made to address the shortfalls identified.

Enforcement

We have identified a breach in relation to safe care and treatment at this inspection. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

11 July 2018

During a routine inspection

Fuchsia Homecare Bury St Edmonds is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people who live in their own houses or flats. It provides a service to adults. Not everyone using Fuchsia Homecare Bury St Edmonds 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.

This service was registered on 20 September 2017.This was their first inspection.

At the time of this announced comprehensive inspection of 11 and 13 July 2018, there were 47 people who used the service and received ‘personal care’. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we wanted to be certain the registered manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to seek agreements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out about their experience of using the service.

A registered manager was in post. 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 and their relatives had developed good relationships with the care workers and management team. People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. They were able to express their views and care staff listened to what they said and ensured their decisions were acted on.

People’s care records were accurate and reflected the support provided. Care workers consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Systems were in place to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, and in relation to mobility, nutrition and with accessing the community. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Recruitment checks were carried out with sufficient numbers of care workers employed. They had the knowledge and skills through regular supervision and training to meet people’s needs.

Where people required assistance with their medicines, safe systems were followed. Care workers were provided with training in infection control and food hygiene and understood their responsibilities relating to these areas. Systems were in place to reduce the risks of cross infection.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies. Where care workers had identified concerns in people’s wellbeing there were systems in place to contact health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Where required, people were safely supported with their dietary needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the care they received. People’s feedback was valued and acted on. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result, the quality of the service continued to progress.