You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 July 2017

Carers Direct Homecare provides personal care and treatment for older people living in their own homes. On the day of the inspection the registered manager informed us that there were a total of 24 people receiving care from the service.

A registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risk assessments were in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare, though these did not cover all assessed issues. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.

People and relatives we spoke with told us they thought the service ensured that people received safe personal care from staff. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area.

We saw that medicines had been supplied safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs.

Staff had received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs, though more training was needed on some relevant issues.

Not all staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives. Assessments of people's capacity to make decisions were not always detailed to determine whether they needed extra protections in place to keep them safe.

People and relatives we spoke with all told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. They told us they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet any identified needs.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service to ensure that their needs were met.

People and relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns, and they were confident these would be properly followed up.

They were satisfied with how the service was run. Staff felt they had been fully supported in their work by the management of the service.

Policies properly set out information about the need to refer to the relevant safeguarding agency. The registered manager was aware that these incidents, if they occurred, needed to be reported to CQC, as legally required.

Management had carried out audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service, though more detail was needed to fully show what checks had been made.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 July 2017

The service was not comprehensively safe.

Risk assessments to protect people's health and welfare were not always in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare.

People and their relatives thought that staff provided safe care and that people felt safe with staff from the service. Staff recruitment checks had, in the main, been in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff. People had received care at agreed times to safely promote their health. Staff were aware of how to report incidents to their management to protect people’s safety. Medicines had been supplied as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 July 2017

The service was effective.

People and relatives thought that staff had been trained to meet the assessed needs. Staff had received support to carry out their role of providing effective care to meet people's needs. Staff were trained, in the main, to meet people's care needs, though some training was needed to comprehensively cover all people's care needs. People's consent to care and treatment was sought, though action was needed so that this was always in line with legislation and guidance. People's nutritional needs had been promoted. People's health needs had been met by staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 July 2017

The service was caring.

People and relatives we spoke with told us that staff were kind, friendly and caring and respected people’s rights. People and their relatives had been, in the main, involved in setting up care plans that reflected people's needs. Staff respected people's choices, privacy, independence and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives had been satisfied that staff provided a service that met people’s needs. Care plans contained information on how staff should respond to people's assessed needs. People and their relatives were confident that the service would act on complaints. Calls had not always been on time to respond to people's needs.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 July 2017

The service was well led.

Legal notifications had been sent to us. Services had been audited in order to measure whether a quality service had been provided. People and their relatives thought it was an organised and well led service. Staff told us that their management provided good support to them. They said the registered manager had a clear vision and expectation of how friendly individual care was to be provided to people.