You are here

Fosse Healthcare - Sheffield Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 6 February 2019

The inspection took place on 15 January 2019. The registered provider was given short notice of the visit to the office, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community.

At the time of our inspection there were 30 people who used the service. The Care Quality commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered in January 2018.

The service was managed by the 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 were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people's needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed. Infection, prevention and control procedures were in place and staff followed these.

Staffing levels were maintained to ensure that people's care and support needs continued to be met safely and there were safe recruitment processes in place. However, there was lack of consistency in staff providing support to people.

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. People’s needs and choices were assessed and mental capacity assessments were undertaken.

Most people we spoke with were happy with the care and support provided. However, some said they did not always receive the care required and staff recorded incorrectly in the daily notes. The people we spoke with did not want the specific details raising with the service, although we discussed this in general with the registered manager who agreed to discuss with staff the need to follow care plans and record accurately what care and support was provided.

The provider had a complaints procedure that was given to all people who used the service in the statement of purpose. Most people we spoke with said they were listened to and any complaints received were dealt with following the providers complaints policy and procedure.

Most staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed their work and received regular supervision, appraisals and training. Some staff felt supported to carry out their work. However, some commented that some members of the team did not speak to them appropriately and on occasions were rude and abrupt. The registered manager agreed to look into this.

A system was in place for checking the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys and meetings. Some people made their views known through direct discussion with the service manager and staff or through the complaint and quality monitoring systems, others although raised issues with us had not chosen to bring them to the attention of the registered manager. People's privacy and confidentiality were maintained as records were held securely.

Inspection areas



Updated 6 February 2019

The service was safe?

Risk were identified and managed. People were safe. Medicines were managed to ensure people received their medications as prescribed. Infection control policies were followed by staff.

There was enough suitable and sufficient staff however, there were some staff who frequently picked up additional shifts to ensure people�s needs were met.



Updated 6 February 2019

The service was effective.

There was a system in place to ensure staff were trained and training needs were identified and staff were suitably supported.

People were supported by staff who had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act and applied its principles in their work.

People had access to healthcare professionals when required.



Updated 6 February 2019

The service was caring.

People told us that staff were kind and caring. People were respected and had their dignity maintained.



Updated 6 February 2019

The service was responsive.

People's needs had been fully assessed and people were involved in planning their care.

There were arrangements in place to respond and learn from feedback from people, relatives and staff.

People and their relatives were confident they were listened to however had not always raised concerns. They told us they knew how to complain if they wished to.



Updated 6 February 2019

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager in post and a management team to support the care delivery.

The service shared learning and looked for continuous improvement.

The registered provider had systems in place to ensure the service operated to an expected standard.