Archived: Suite 5, Lancashire Digital Technology Centre

Suite 5, Lancashire Digital Technology Centre provides personal care and support and domestic services to people living in their own homes in Burnley and the surrounding areas. The service is mainly provided to older people with needs relating to old age, including people living with dementia. The office is situated on a business estate on the outskirts of Burnley. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 10 people.

At the previous inspection on 6 December 2013 we found the service was meeting all the standards assessed.

The service was managed by 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 for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During this inspection visit we found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, relating to ineffective quality assurance, management of people’s medicines, training and supervision and recruitment processes. You can see what action we told the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People felt the agency was well organised. However, during our inspection we found a number of areas in need of improvement. This meant the systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service, including obtaining feedback from people were not effective.

People and their relatives were happy with the service they received from Suite 5, Lancashire Digital Technology Centre. They told us they felt safe using the service. Staff were able to describe the action they would take if they witnessed or suspected any abusive or neglectful practice. However we found staff had not received any recent safeguarding vulnerable adults training or any training related to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We found the training and monitoring to ensure people received safe support with their medicines needed to be improved. Safe recruitment processes had not been followed which could place people at risk from unsuitable staff. Staff had not received ongoing development and supervision to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to safely support people.

People told us staff were respectful of their privacy and maintained their dignity. People told us the staff were kind and caring. People told us they received care and support from staff they were familiar with and who arrived on time, never missed a visit and stayed the agreed amount of time.

Care records were an accurate reflection of the person’s care and support needs and they were reviewed regularly to reflect changes to the person’s needs and circumstances. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs, backgrounds and personalities and were familiar with the content of people’s care plans. People had been involved with their care plans and the ongoing reviews.

Processes were in place to monitor and respond to people’s health care needs. Where appropriate people were supported with eating and drinking.

The complaints procedure provided information on the action to take if a person wished to raise any concerns. People told us they had no complaints but were aware of the complaints procedure and processes and were confident they would be listened to.

Plans of care were person centred (which meant they were developed for each individual), told staff exactly what they needed to do during each visit and were updated on a regular basis. Plans of care gave staff the details to look after the people who used the service.

The recruitment procedures were robust to help ensure staff who looked after people were suitable for their roles.

There was an effective complaints procedure for people to raise any concerns. Concerns and compliments were recorded and the service took action to address any problems. All the people we spoke with praised the service and said they had no complaints.

The service operated out of a suitable modern office and people who used the service and their family members said they were able to contact the agency out of normal office hours.

We revisited the service and looked at some of the records that would help to protect people from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care. We looked at the records of four people receiving a service and the records of three staff. We found the records were accurate and up to date and regular checks were in place to maintain this.