You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 August 2017

We undertook an announced inspection of Care24Seven on 18 July 2017. We told the provider 24 hours before our visit that we would be coming because the location provided a domiciliary care service for people in their own homes and the registered manager and staff might be not be available to assist with the inspection if they were out visiting people. The service was last inspected on 14 July 2015, when we rated all the key questions and the service overall ‘Good’..

Care24Seven provides a range of services to people in their own home including personal care. Most people using the service were older people, although there were also some younger adults who had learning disabilities and mental health needs. At the time of our inspection 53 people were receiving personal care in their home. Most people were paying for their own care, and a small number of people were funded by their local authority.

The agency is owned by Eager Health Limited, a private organisation set up by a family.

There was 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's needs were assessed by a senior member of staff prior to receiving a service and care plans were developed from the assessments. However, some care plans did not contain the necessary information for staff to know how to support people and meet their needs and were not written in a person centred way. We have made a recommendation with regards to improving care planning to make these more person centred.

The risks to people's wellbeing and safety had been assessed, and there was information on people’s records about how to mitigate these risks.

There were procedures for safeguarding adults and the care workers were aware of these. Staff knew how to respond to any medical emergencies or significant changes in a person's wellbeing.

Feedback from people and their relatives was positive. Most people said they had regular staff visiting which enabled them to build a rapport and get to know them.

People we spoke with and their relatives said that they were happy with the level of care they were receiving from the service.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and told us that all staff had received training on this. People had consented to their care and support and had their capacity assessed prior to receiving a service from Care24Seven.

There were systems in place to ensure that people received their medicines safely and the staff had received training in the management of medicines.

The service employed enough staff to meet people's needs safely and had contingency plans in place in the event of staff’s absence. Recruitment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they supported people unsupervised.

People's health and nutritional needs had been assessed, recorded and were being monitored.

Care staff received an induction and shadowing period before delivering care and support to people. They received the training and support they needed to care for people.

There was a complaints procedure in place which the provider followed. People felt confident that if they raised a complaint, they would be listened to and their concerns addressed.

There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality and effectiveness of the service, and the provider ensured that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

People, staff and relatives told us that the registered manager and senior team were approachable and supportive. There was a clear management structure, and they encouraged an open and transparent culture within the service. People an

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 August 2017

The service was safe.

The risks to people's wellbeing and safety had been assessed, and there was information about how to mitigate these risks.

There were procedures for safeguarding adults and staff were aware of these.

People were given the support they needed with medicines and there were regular audits by senior staff.

The service employed enough staff and contingency plans were in place in the event of staff absence. Recruitment checks were undertaken to obtain information about new staff before they supported people unsupervised.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 August 2017

The service was effective.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood its principles. People had consented to their care and support.

Staff received the training and support they needed to care for people and meet their needs.

People's health and nutritional needs had been assessed, recorded and were being monitored.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 August 2017

The service was caring.

Feedback from people and relatives was positive about both the staff and the management team.

People and relatives said the care workers were kind, caring and respectful. Most people received care from regular care workers and developed a trusting relationship.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 17 August 2017

The service was not always responsive.

People's individual needs had been assessed and recorded in their care plans prior to receiving a service, and were regularly reviewed. However some care plans did not contain enough details for staff to know how to meet peoples’ needs and were not written in a person centred way.

There was a complaints policy in place. People knew how to make a complaint, and felt confident that their concerns would be addressed appropriately.

The service regularly conducted satisfaction surveys for people and their relatives. These provided vital information about the quality of the service provided.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 August 2017

The service was well-led.

At the time of our inspection, the service employed a registered manager.

People and their relatives found the management team to be approachable and supportive.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

The provider encouraged good communication with staff and people who used the service, which promoted a culture of openness and trust within the service.