Background to this inspection
Updated
27 February 2019
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is a small domiciliary care service and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. At the time the inspection started, the service was supporting two people with their personal care needs.
The inspection was completed by one inspector. The inspection site visit activity started on 5 December and ended on 6 December. It included telephone calls to people and their relatives using the service, or having recently used the service. We visited the office location on 6 December to see the manager and to review care records and policies and procedures.
Before the inspection, the registered manager completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The registered manager returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. We also contacted health and social care commissioners who place and monitor the care of people using care services, the local authority safeguarding team and Healthwatch England, the national consumer champion in health and social care to identify if they had any information which may support our inspection.
During our inspection, we spoke with two people who had used the service and one person’s relative. We also spoke with two members of staff and the registered manager.
We reviewed three staff files and the care records for four people who used, or had recently used the service. We also looked at other information related to the running of and the quality of the service. This included quality assurance audits, training information, staffing rotas, and arrangements for managing complaints.
Updated
27 February 2019
This inspection took place on 6 December 2018 and was the first inspection since the service was registered with the CQC in December 2017.
Fairview Resources Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Not everyone using this service receives the regulated activity; The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
On this inspection we were unable to provide the service with a rating. This is because the service had not been providing care and support to enough people over a long enough time period for us to review.
The service did have 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.
People told us the service did not always provide their care visits on time. The registered manager was in the process of launching an electronic staffing rota and monitoring system which should help ensure visits were on time and for the appropriate length of time.
Safeguarding systems were in place and safeguarding investigations were completed when required.
Recruitment procedures were in place and measures were in place to ensure people were supported by appropriate staff.
Risk assessments were in use however they did not always clearly show what action was required to reduce the known risks to people.
Systems were in place to support people with their medicines however at the time of the inspection nobody was receiving this support.
Systems were in place to implement infection control practices however we received mixed feedback from people about whether staff always followed these practices.
Incidents and accidents were recorded and the registered manager was keen to learn and share good practice.
Further work was required to ensure people with mental capacity assessments clearly had specific decisions recorded about their care.
Staff received an induction and the registered manager planned to enable staff to complete the Care Certificate. Training was focussed on the needs and potential needs of people using the service.
The registered manager understood the requirement to provide supervision to staff about their performance but at the time of inspection, had not done so as staff had not been in their roles for a long period of time.
At the time of inspection, people did not require support to manage their nutritional needs however staff had a good understanding of this in the event it would be required in the future.
Staff worked with people and their families to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met effectively.
People told us the staff were nice. Staff worked to understand people’s needs.
Plans were in place to ensure people and their relatives were involved in reviewing people’s care.
People were asked about their cultural practices and beliefs in order for staff to offer support.
People were supported to maintain their dignity and staff took action to protect this.
Staff showed compassion and had caring attitudes towards the people they supported.
People had care plans in place however they did not always fully reflect people’s care needs
Systems were in place to review care plans however at the time of inspection, nobody had been using the service long enough for a review.
People knew who the registered manager was and gave mixed feedback about whether they resolved issues effectively, particularly around the timeliness and consistency of staff.
Systems were in place for people to provide their feedback however at the time of inspection, this had not been utilised by people using the service.