Archived: Ark Home Healthcare Whinndale

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Individual risks to people’s safety were known by staff. Staff were confident in supporting people with medicines and the manager was considering how call times impacted upon the way people were supported with their medicines.

Staff had regular opportunities to update their skills and professional development. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. 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 were motivated and worked well as a team, with effective support from one another and from managers in the organisation.

Care records contained clear information covering all aspects of people’s individualised care and support and staff had a caring approach to working with the people who used the service.

There was a clear management structure so that all staff knew their roles and responsibilities. There was an open and transparent culture in which staff felt valued and able to approach managers.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection and discussions with staff. We were unable to discuss medicines with anyone who used the service at this visit; however we looked at medicines records for six people, two of which we looked at in further detail.

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

Is the service safe?

We found that the service was not safe because people were not protected against the risks associated with use and management of medicines.

People did not always receive their medicines when they needed them and medicines were not obtained and recorded properly. Audit systems for checking medicines were in place but concerns about the way medicines were handled had not been identified or managed appropriately.

We found that staff were working hard to ensure medicines were given safely, and improvements had been made since our last inspection. However, records relating to medicines were not always accurate, and audits of the use of medicines were inadequately documented.

All three relatives told us that both they and their family member were involved with the care planning process. Three people we spoke with told us they felt involved with their care and were aware of their care plans. Two people said they did not have a care plan but they had a say in their care.

People's comments included:

'I couldn't wish for better care. They go above and beyond.'

'They are very good.'

'If I want anything doing, it'll be done.'

'It's been alright up to now.'

We looked at three care records and found that people's needs had been assessed prior to care being delivered. Although care plans met people's needs we found they were very basic and would benefit from more detailed information to make clear how people's needs should be met.

We identified there were no clear systems in place regarding the obtaining and disposing of medication. We found conflicting information regarding people's medicines in their risk assessments and their Medicine Administration Record (MAR).

We spoke with three members of staff and looked at three staff records and found evidence that all staff mandatory training was up to date. We saw that a recruitment and selection process was followed and that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

The provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.