You are here

Interserve Healthcare - Yorkshire Requires improvement

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 24 January 2019

We undertook an announced inspection of Interserve Healthcare Yorkshire 2, 7 and 9 November 2018 and we spoke with people via the telephone and visited people in their homes on 4 and 9 December 2018. This was the first inspection for this service since they registered with the Care Quality Commission in November 2017.

Interserve Healthcare Yorkshire is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults in the Leeds area.

The service had a registered manager. 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 had only been in post a few months at the time of inspection.

Staff received ongoing training from the provider. New staff underwent induction training. However, training records showed some staff’s training records had lapsed.

The quality assurance systems showed how the service continually sought to improve, although, systems had not identified the areas of concern we raised at this inspection.

Care records sometimes lacked important details of how to support people in a specific way to meet their needs.

Staff spoke highly of the teamwork and how supportive colleagues were of each other. Supervisions and appraisals had not always been completed for some staff. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

The provider had a clear policy and procedure in place for managing complaints. People felt able to raise any issues with any of the staff and were confident these would be addressed. However, we saw evidence some complaints had not followed the providers process.

People were safe as the staff team knew them well. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to any safeguarding concerns, and any learning from such incidents was shared with staff.

Staff made sure risk assessments were in place and took actions to minimise risks without taking away people's right to make decisions. People who had specific nutritional needs were supported to maintain a healthy diet.

People told us there were enough staff to help them when needed. Staff told us there were enough staff to provide safe care and support to people effectively. Advanced planning meant staffing levels were reviewed and reflected the needs of people who used the service.

People's medicines were managed in a safe way. When people required further intervention from medical professionals, staff knew the process to follow to help people with this.

Recruitment was appropriately managed as relevant background checks had been completed prior to employment, to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

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. The registered manager was aware of current procedures and guidance for best practice, and this was evident in the policies used at the service.

People told us staff understood confidentiality, dignity and respect. We were told staff were very committed to the people they cared for, building a good rapport and taking time to get to know them. Staff ensured people were treated with kindness and compassion, and provided significant emotional support when people became anxious. Privacy and dignity was promoted always.

It was evident the registered manager and their staff team were striving for the best outcomes for people who used the service through utilising the partnerships they had built up with external services.

Staff had a good knowledge of the prevention of infection and told us they were provide with personal protective equipment to use when working with p

Inspection areas



Updated 24 January 2019

The service was safe.

People were cared for by staff who had the knowledge to protect people from the risk of harm.

Medication and infection control practice was safe.

During the recruitment process thorough background checks had been carried out, which helped to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's individual needs.



Updated 24 January 2019

The service was effective.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive on going healthcare support.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff had a good knowledge of this.

Staff sometimes had not completed their renewal training on time and were not always supervised in line with the providers policy.



Updated 24 January 2019

The service was caring.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at all levels and were happy with the care provided.

Staff displayed kindness and empathy to all people and knew people well.

Records showed all relevant people were involved in supporting people in the manner they wished to be care for.


Requires improvement

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was not always responsive.

People were involved in the planning of their care and support, although, care and support needs were not always reflected in sufficient detail.

The service had a complaints procedure in place, and had received compliments. However, complaints had not always been responded to in-line with the providers policy.


Requires improvement

Updated 24 January 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Quality monitoring systems were in place but had not identified some of the areas of concern raised during the inspection.

People were included in the way the service was run and were listened too.