You are here

Creative Support - Tameside Domiciliary Service Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Reports


Review carried out on 4 November 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Creative Support - Tameside Domiciliary Service on 4 November 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Creative Support - Tameside Domiciliary Service, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 5 May 2021

During a routine inspection

About the service

Creative Support–Tameside Domiciliary Service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. This service also provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. At the time of our inspection there were 138 people using the service.

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.

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

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

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Risks to people were identified and well managed. Safe systems of recruitment and medicines management were in place. Staff had received training and supervision about Covid-19, infection control and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. People, and where appropriate those who were important to them, were involved in decisions about their care.

People were very positive about the staff who supported them. They had good relationships with the staff and said staff helped them feel less isolated. They said, "They [staff] are very special people and all are good and have warm hearts” and “For me, important people are my carers, my girls, they are thorough and detailed, and they do great job for me. They will do anything for me." Staff spoke very fondly of the people they supported and were positive about their work.

People received personalised care that took account of their needs, wishes and preferences. Support plans and risk assessments were person centred, and covered people's identified needs and preferences. Great importance was placed on what people could do for themselves and how staff could promote people’s independence.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities and operated a variety of quality checks and audits to monitor quality in the service. Staff spoke very highly of the provider, registered manager and how the service was run and organised. They told us the new registered manager had made a positive difference and they felt supported.

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

Rating at last inspection and update: The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 6 April 2019) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Creative Support-Tameside Domiciliary Service on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

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.

Inspection carried out on 9 October 2018

During a routine inspection

The service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using Creative Support – Tameside Domiciliary Care Service receives a regulated activity; The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ such as help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection, 136 people were using the service. The service provides personal care in people’s own homes and support to people living in an extra care housing service. We have referred to both services in this report as the community and the extra care service.

The inspection took place on 9, 10 and 12 October 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice we were due to inspect to ensure there was someone available in the office and to alert people we may visit them with permission in their own homes. This has been the first inspection since the service re-registered from their new address in September 2017.

At this inspection, we found a number of concerns relating to safety, person centred care, consent, fit and proper persons and good governance. The overall rating for the service is requires improvement.

The service has 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 to meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risks to people were not fully explored and risk assessments for people in the community were partly completed and did not give guidance to staff for them to be able to safely manage the risk. Moving and handling risk assessments lacked detail to enable people to be moved safely.

Recruitment of staff was not always safe. Staff’s employment history has not always been fully explored and one staff member had commenced employment without a valid disclosure and barring check in place.

Support with medicines was not safely managed. There were a number of gaps on the medication administration records. The records did not always have people’s names and other personal details written on them and medication details and directions were not always clearly recorded.

Late calls were a common theme from the people being supported by the service. People told us they were not always informed when the staff member would be late. People also told us there was a lack of consistency in staffing and they did not always know who would be visiting to support them. The majority of people we spoke with from the community felt their care was rushed and staff members did not stay for the whole duration of the call.

Staff members had received training in safeguarding vulnerable people from abuse. All staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in relation to reporting any alleged abuse and could describe what actions to take should they suspect abuse was occurring.

The service was not acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People did not have their capacity assessed and consent to care and support was not always recorded. Relatives were consenting to care and support without having the legal right to do so.

Staff received an induction to their job role and appropriate training. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal, but supervision notes lacked content and did not support staff development.

People had their needs assessed prior to being supported by the service. However, the assessment did not always feed into the care plans.

Staff were kind and respectful to the people they supported. People were supported to retain their independence.

Religious or cultural needs were not always recorded in peoples care plans.

Care plans were not reflective of people’s assessed needs. Care plans in the community did not fully give guidance to staff to effectively support people and did not highlight important information. People were not always involved in their care planning and reviews. Care plans lacked detail and clarity and were not person centred.

Hospital passports in place to support people with unplanned hospital admissions did not always have the correct information documented in them to alert hospital staff to how each person communicated, managed mobility, nutrition and mental health.

Complaints were responded to and outcomes shared for learning.

There was a lack of oversight of the governance of the service. Internal audits had not highlighted errors in medication administration records or lack of detail in care files. A senior management audit did identify concerns with detail in care files, but action had not been taken in a timely way to improve the information to enable people to be effectively supported.

Actions had been taken to ensure staff understood the values and culture of the organisation. This included the retraining of staff with the organisations own training academy.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager. The registered manager had a support network including senior operations managers and the nominated individual and chief executive officer.

Statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission were submitted as required.