Archived: Choice (Doncaster) Ltd

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

Staff were not appropriately supervised, appraised or trained. The manager in post had only commenced in March 2014. They told us they had priorities actions that were required to improve the service and had not yet commenced the supervisions or appraisals.

The training certificates in staff files we looked at showed that training updates were required for all training as the last date for any training certificates seen was March 2013. The manager told us that mandatory training was required every year. This meant the provider was not following their policies, which could put people at risk of receiving unsafe inappropriate care.

Is the service effective?

We found most people's health and care needs were assessed and information was available that told staff how to support them. People who used the service and relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and support given by staff at the agency. People we spoke with told us the care staff were very good. One relative told us, 'The service has improved over the last couple of months; the new manager is very approachable and listens.'

Is the service caring?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's decisions and choices were respected. We saw that people had a plan of care, although these required reviewing. Staff recorded the details of the care and support given at each visit.

One person told us, 'The staff are very good and are very respectful, they listen to me and give me time to make choices.'

We visited people with a care worker and observed the care workers interacted positively with people who used the service. Staff showed patience and had a good rapport when supporting people. At one visit the person and the staff were having a laugh and a joke together. The person was enjoying the interactions. The person told us, 'The staff are very good.'

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Relatives told us they had raised concerns in the past and not been listened to. However they felt since the new manager was in past things were getting dealt with and rectified.

The service was short staffed at our visit and the manager was actively recruiting staff. This would ensure the senior support staff could then review plans of care, supervise staff and quality monitor the service.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had commenced in post in March 2014 and was in the process of registering with CQC. They had identified improvements required and were in the process of implementing the improvements. However until they had a full complement of staff this was not always happening.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times. Staff told us communication had improved since the new manager had been appointed and they felt listened to.

People who used the service and their relatives told us on occasions they would have a new carer during holiday periods or if someone was sick. They said this had caused some problems as they did not always know how to meet their needs. However we were told on most visits it was always the same group of carers that visited.

People also told us that staff treated them with respect, listened to them, gave them choices, made them feel safe and supported them. One person told us, 'I have a very good care worker who I can talk to if I have any concerns and they sort it for me.'

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Staff received professional development however the supervision and appraisal system was not appropriate and did not ensure staff were competent to do their jobs.

We found there was not an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.