The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Staff 2000 Domiciliary Care Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

7 Trinity, 161 Old Christchurch Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH1 1JU

Provided and run by:
Staff 2000 Limited

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

All Inspections

9 and 10 February 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was announced and took place on 9 and 10 February 2015. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. This was to make sure the deputy manager was available.

Staff 2000 employs care workers to provide personal care for adults of all ages in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to five people.

We last inspected Staff 2000 on 19 August and 2 September 2014. Following this inspection we issued four warning notices for repeated breaches of the regulations. This was because Staff 2000 had not met the shortfalls identified at our inspection in October 2013. The warning notices were issued because staff recruitment was not safe, staff did not have the training and support they needed, shortfalls in record keeping and monitoring the safety and quality of the service. Improvements had been made and all four warning notices were met.

There was a registered manager at the service but they were on a planned period of absence. The deputy manager was covering this position in the registered manager’s absence. 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 relatives said the staff were all very kind, compassionate, respectful and caring. They took the time to make sure people had everything they needed before they left them.

People told us they felt safe and relatives said their family members were safe with staff and they had confidence in staff. Any risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed to minimise risks.

There were systems in place to safely manage and administer medicines for people. Staff had been trained in the safe administration of medicines.

People received care and support in a personalised way. Staff knew people well and understood their needs and the way they communicated. We found that people received the health, personal and social care support they needed.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People and staff had good relationships.

Staff received an induction, core training and some specialist training so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. There were enough staff employed and staff were safely recruited.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns or complaints. People and relatives were regularly consulted by the managers.

The culture within the service was personalised and open. There was a clear management structure and staff, relatives and people felt comfortable talking to the managers about any issues and were sure that any concerns would be addressed. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.

19 August and 2 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was an unannounced inspection which was undertaken by one inspector over the course of two days. The inspection was carried out to check that the agency had taken action in a number of areas following our inspection in October 2013. Time was spent speaking with staff, and the manager. We also spent time looking at various records.

The registered manager was not available during the first day of the inspection. There were no other domiciliary care staff available in the office which was shared with staff from the temp agency part of the business. The office staff were helpful but they were not able to locate all of the information that was required. The second day of the inspection was announced in order that we could ensure that the registered manager was available.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We found that the provider had not taken action to ensure that there were effective recruitment procedures in place. The required information, checks and references had not been obtained to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

A number of the records that the service was required to keep had not been properly completed and kept up to date. This meant that the provider had not ensured that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

Is the service caring?

We found that the agency did not have a method by which they could ensure that everyone who used the service was given the opportunity to give feedback on the quality of the service they received. The registered manager had also not taken care to ensure that risk assessments were undertaken regularly and reviewed in order to identify potential hazards to people who used the agency and to the staff who worked for the agency.

Is the service responsive?

This inspection was carried out to check that non compliance identified in our previous inspection had been rectified. Analysis of the issues found during this inspection show that the provider has failed to recognise the shortfalls in the service and take effective action to ensure compliance with legislation.

Is the service effective?

The provider had not taken steps to ensure that staff were suitably trained and supervised. This meant that people were not always cared for by staff who had been supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Is the service well led?

There were no systems in place to monitor the quality of the service or identify and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of the people who use the service, staff and other people. This meant that the provider had no means of identifying possible failures in the provision of the service to vulnerable people or identifying possible hazards and taking action to put things right.

10 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us that the provider had given them information about the care to be provided and that this was delivered as agreed with them. A person's relative said "we agreed a care plan and contract including hours and days, when we need extra care this is no problem".

We found that people's individual needs were assessed and that care was planned and delivered to meet their needs. A person told us "I explain to the staff what I need and they do it - they do it well, I am happy". We found that people's care was planned to ensure their safety and welfare and people told us they felt "safe" and "trusted" the provider's staff.

We found that staff had completed training in safeguarding people from abuse and knew how to act if they had concerns. People told us they knew who to contact if they had any concerns.

People told us that they were satisfied with the standard of care they received from the provider's staff. One person said "they are an excellent service". Another person said "staff are genuinely caring and of a good quality". We have asked the provider to make some improvements in the support they give to staff.

We found that people were regularly asked about the quality of service they received and people reported this was of a high standard. We have asked the provider to make some improvements to their quality monitoring system and to ensure their records are accurate and accessible.

14 December 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection Staff 2000 Domiciliary Care Service was a small and developing operation. It employed two care workers and provided 17 hours of personal care to four people who lived in their own homes.

We accompanied the manager of Staff 2000 Domiciliary Care Service to the homes of three people in order to obtain their views about the service they received..

People we spoke with spoke with told us that care workers were polite and respectful. They told us they saw the same care workers regularly, that care workers were prompt and provided them with all the help and support they needed.

We saw that the provider had arrangements in place that ensured people who used their service would be protected from mistreatment. The provider also had robust recruitment procedures in place as well as arrangements to monitor the quality of the service they provided.