You are here

Central Lancashire Age Concern - Nail Cutting Service Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 May 2013
Date of Publication: 29 June 2013
Inspection Report published 29 June 2013 PDF | 85.49 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 30 May 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and sent a questionnaire to people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by other regulators or the Department of Health.

Our judgement

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

Reasons for our judgement

The manager told us they carried out quality assurance monitoring of the service. They had completed a survey in January 2013 and had received a very good response. Feedback from the survey showed people were more than happy with their treatment and the nail support officers that provided it. We looked at samples that had been returned and noted some very positive comments had been made. ‘I would like to thank age concern for the excellent foot care nail cutting service. ….. is always reliable and professional and we are completely satisfied. She is a credit to the organisation’. And ‘Excellent service from a caring team’. ‘She can move about more on her feet. She is nearly blind and cannot see to cut her own toe nails’.

Records we looked at showed there were clear lines of accountability. Job descriptions outlined staff responsibility that supported them to work within agreed values that reflected standards as outlined in the essential standards of quality and safety. For example ‘Ensure legible, comprehensive and accurate written records of support and prepare written case studies, reports, assessments and to maintain and update files as required’. ‘Work within the organisation policies and procedures’. The manager told us staff were required to return service users records to the office. These records were audited to ensure they were being maintained properly.

Information about the risks to people's health, welfare and safety was recorded. These provided staff with guidance on keeping themselves and people they cared for safe. Staff contractual arrangements were in place for people’s protection.

We found evidence staff were kept up to date with changes to people’s care and requirements. The manager told us they sent out weekly emails on Mondays that alerted staff of any general update including polices and procedures. This was referred to as the ‘grapevine’.

Systems were in place to audit the service and make improvements where required such as specialist training for staff. People were visited in their home and spot checks on staff performance carried out. This provided the agency with good evidence staff were meeting their obligations and attending to people when required.

We noted the service had a number of external accredited awards that looked at the management of the service and staff development. These included Investors in People Award (IIP), Administration of the management of the services to support older people (ISO 9001), Health workers Gold award, Lancashire County Council Carers Quality Mark and NAVAJO charter mark.