Starline 2000

Starline 2000 is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting eight people.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. In this service, the Care Quality Commission can only inspect the service received by people who get support with personal care. This includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people receive such support, we also consider any wider social care provided.

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

Risks faced by people were assessed but the registered manager did not always record the correct information to give staff clear guidance to mitigate risks. One person’s medicines had not always been correctly recorded.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice.

There were monitoring and auditing systems in place However, these were not always effective. The provider did not always have robust procedures in place for managing the service. The provider did not send in notifications in a timely way. Registered providers must notify us about certain changes, events and incidents that affect their service or people who use the service.

People felt protected from the risk of harm. Staff had access to training which was appropriate to their role. There were safe recruitment practices in place. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. People were assessed prior to care packages starting. People and their relatives had been involved in the care planning process. Relatives told us that people were treated with dignity and respect. They were also positive about the staff, and they told us that staff were kind and caring.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 26 July 2019)

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We have identified breaches in relation to consent and good governance. We made three recommendations to the provider to review their practice to ensure they were assessing risk, administering medicines safely and following their supervision policy.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Starline 2000 is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to four people at the time of the inspection. It provides services to older adults and younger adults with disabilities.

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

We received positive feedback about the service from the people, relatives, professionals and staff that we spoke with. Professionals told us that people’s wellbeing had improved because of the care they had received. People told us they would recommend the service.

People told us staff treated them well, usually arrived on time and that they were supported by regular staff who understood their needs. People we spoke with had no concerns but were aware how to report any concerns they may have in future. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and had a good understanding of their role.

People felt safe. Risk to their safety had been assessed and documented. Support plans were in place and contained the information staff needed to meet people’s needs and understand their preferences. However, safe recruitment procedures were not always adhered to.

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.

The service was providing end of life care. People’s care plans contained basic information about their needs and wishes in this area.

Staff had a comprehensive induction period which they said prepared them well for their job. They praised the management team for being supportive and said they would recommend working for the company.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, the service was not rated because only one person was being supported. The report was published 31 January 2019.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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.

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.

The registered manager and nominated individual were aware of their CQC registration requirements including submitting notifications of significant incidents.

Risk assessments were in place and detailed actions to reduce identified risks to the person using the service. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood signs to recognise abuse and how to report their concerns. Staff knew how to report incidents and accidents. Staff followed infection control procedures. There were systems in place for the safe management of people’s medicines. However, no one was being supported with their medicines when we visited.

Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure staff employed to work with people were suitable to do so. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to support the person using the service. Staff were supported through induction, supervision and training to provide appropriate care to people. Staff received the direction and guidance to do their jobs.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. The person using the service. had care plans in place which set out how their needs and requirements would be met. The person using the service and their relative were involved in planning and reviewing their care. The person using the service was supported to eat and drink appropriately and to meet their dietary and nutritional requirements. Staff supported the person to access healthcare services where required.

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. Staff and the provider understood their responsibilities within the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff treated people with respect and consideration. The person using the service’s dignity and privacy was respected by staff. Staff supported the person to follow their religious and cultural beliefs. The registered manager had experience in delivering end-of-life care. However, no one was receiving this service when we visited.

The relative we spoke with told us they knew how to raise their concerns and complaints about the service if they wished. The provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of service provided to the person using the service. The registered manager visited the person and their relative to obtain their feedback about the service. Staff were given the guidance, and support they needed to fulfil their roles effectively.

The provider had a business plan in place and they were seeking ways to grow, develop and sustain the business. The service was a small and was not working in partnership with other organisations when we visited.