Background to this inspection
Updated
29 November 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection site visit took place on 9 and 10 October 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the service is a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that the provider would be in. We visited the office location to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector and one expert by experience. The expert by experience made phone calls to people to seek their feedback about the service. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection, we looked at all the information we held about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the service sent to the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events that the service is required to send us by law. Due to technical problems, the provider was not able to complete a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.
During the inspection, we spoke with one person, six relatives, three members of staff, the business development director, the human resources director and the registered manager. We looked at three people’s care records and three staff records. We also looked at records related to the management of the service, such as the complaints, accidents and incidents, safeguarding, health and safety, and policies and procedures.
Updated
29 November 2018
This announced inspection took place on 9 and 10 October 2018. Arale Group Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of the inspection nine people were using the service. This was the first inspection of Arale Group Limited, since their registration in October 2017.
The service had a registered manager 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 told us they felt safe with staff and the service. The service had clear procedures to recognise and respond to abuse. All staff had completed safeguarding training. Risk assessments for people were in place, which provided sufficient guidance for staff to minimise identified risks. The service had a system to manage accidents and incidents to reduce recurrences. People were protected from the risk of infection.
The service had enough staff to support people and satisfactory background checks were carried out for staff before they started working. The service had an on-call system to make sure staff had support outside office working hours. The service provided an induction and training, and supported staff through regular supervision and spot checks to help them undertake their role.
Staff supported people to take their medicines safely. The provider had a policy and procedure which gave guidance to staff on their role in supporting people to manage their medicines safely.
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. People consented to their care before it was delivered. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities within the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People’s needs were assessed to ensure these could be met by the service. Staff used this information as a basis for developing personalised care plans to meet each person’s needs.
Staff supported people with food preparation. People’s relatives coordinated healthcare appointments to meet people’s needs, and staff were available to support people to access health care appointments if needed.
Staff supported people in a way which was caring, respectful, and protected their privacy and dignity.
People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans were person centred and contained information about people’s personal life and social history, their health and social care needs, allergies, family and friends, and contact details of health and social care professionals. Care plans were reviewed regularly and were up to date. The registered manager told us that they began consultations with relevant professionals, about what aspects of people’s care records required to be translated in their native language, to enable people to read and understand what is written in their care records.
The service had a clear policy and procedure for managing complaints. People knew how to complain and would do so if necessary. The provider had a policy and procedure to provide end-of-life support to people, however they did not require end-of-life support. The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the requirements of the role and their responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
The service had a positive culture, where people felt the service cared about their opinions and included them in decisions. We observed staff were comfortable approaching the registered manager and their conversations were friendly and open.
The provider had systems and processes to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received. The service sought the views of people who used the services. Staff felt supported by the provider. The provider had procedures in place to work in partnership with health and social care professionals.