We carried out a review of the data available to us about Steady Care Services Dorset House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Steady Care Services Dorset House, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People received their care from consistent staff who understood their needs. Staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect. People confirmed that staff offered them choices and respected their decisions about their care. Staff supported people in a way which promoted their independence.
People told us they felt safe when staff provided their care. They said staff understood and followed any guidance in their care plans. People told us their care visits were almost always made on time and said the agency contacted them if staff were running late.
Assessments had been carried out to identify any risks involved in people’s care and measures put in place to mitigate these. Accidents and incidents were recorded and there was evidence of learning when untoward events occurred. People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff were recruited safely and understood their roles in protecting people from abuse.
People’s care and support was provided according to their individual needs. Staff were given sufficient information about people’s needs before providing their care. If people’s needs changed, their package of care was reviewed to establish whether staff had enough time to meet all their care needs at each visit.
Staff monitored people’s health effectively and any concerns they identified were communicated to healthcare professionals. these if necessary. The agency had established good working relationships with professionals involved in people’s care and supported some people to attend medical appointments.
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.
Staff had an induction when they joined the agency and access to training relevant to their roles. This included training on the use of any equipment involved in people’s care. Staff met regularly with their managers for supervision, which enabled them to discuss their performance and training needs.
The management team maintained an effective oversight of the service and communicated effectively with people, their families, professionals and staff. People had opportunities to give feedback about the care they received through quality checks, surveys and reviews.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection this service was rated requires improvement (report published 11 January 2019). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence 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.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people living in their own homes. The agency provided personal care to 60 people at the time of our inspection.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 assisted us with our inspection.
Although people received the medicines they required, we found where people had topical creams, staff did not record formally when they had applied these. We have made a recommendation to the registered provider in this respect.
People’s care plans contained sufficient information to allow a staff member to know what care a person needed. However, they lack the individuality needed to demonstrate a person-centred approach. This included a lack of personal histories, likes, dislikes in relation to people and individualised care plans recording people’s needs.
Registered services are required to inform CQC of significant events. However, we found the registered manager had failed to always do this. We also received mixed feedback about the management of the agency which did not reflect a person-centred approach towards people.
Sufficient staff, who had gone through a robust recruitment process, were employed by the agency and people told us that staff generally arrived on time.
Risks to people had been identified and guidance was in place for staff to help keep people safe. This included training staff in safeguarding people from abuse. We saw evidence of the agency working with the local authority in relation to the safeguarding concerns.
Staff understood their responsibility in following good infection control procedures and they received sufficient support and training to enable them to work competently in their role.
People’s individual dietary needs were recognised and people were supported to access healthcare professional input when required. People had their needs assessed prior to receiving care from the agency. At this point, people’s capacity was assessed to determine whether they had capacity to consent to the care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were cared for by staff who had developed good relationships with them, were caring and showed them respect and dignity. Staff encouraged people to be independent and people told us they were cared for by a consistent staff team.
People said they would know how to complain should they need to. The registered manager held evidence to demonstrate they responded to any concerns raised with them. The registered manager had a drive to provide a good service and as such obtained feedback from people and their relatives and carried out spot checks on staff. Staff told us they felt supported by management and met together to discuss all aspects of the agency. The agency worked in conjunction with external partners to provide a good service to people.
During this inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. We also made one recommendation to the registered provider. You can see what action we have told the registered provider to take at the end of our report.