You are here

Renaissance Personnel Ltd (Kentish Town) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 July 2016

This inspection took place on 17 June 2016. We gave the provider 14 days’ notice that we would be visiting their head office. We gave the provider notice as we wanted to make sure that the registered manage was available on the day of the inspection to support us with the process. At the last inspection in September 2014, the service was meeting all the regulations that were looked at during that time.

Renaissance Personnel Ltd (Kentish Town) provide personal care and support to people living either in their own home or in a supported living scheme. There was approximately 22 people using the service at the time of the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care and support that they received and felt safe in the hands of the care staff that supported them.

Care staff that we spoke with were able to describe the different types of abuse, how to recognise abuse and the actions they would take if abuse was suspected.

The agency ensured that detailed assessments were completed which identified people’s individual risks. As part of the assessment information and direction was recorded to guide care staff on how to reduce and/or mitigate the risk to ensure that people were kept safe.

Where the service supported people with the administration of medicines, we saw appropriate records in place to ensure that people were supported safely. Six monthly medicine audits were completed as a method of checking that care staff were adhering to the company policy and to check that people’s medicines were being administered correctly.

The service had robust recruitment process in place to ensure that only suitable staff were employed. This included an enhanced check for fraudulent documents and the persons legality to work in the UK.

People who used the service and relatives that we spoke with were positive about the care staff that supported them and had confidence in their skills and abilities. Care staff also confirmed that they received regular training in the areas that they needed in order to support people effectively.

Care staff confirmed that they felt supported by the registered manager and the care co-ordinators and received regular supervision with them.

The registered manager, senior carers, care co-ordinator and most care staff were able to explain to use their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how this was relevant to the care and support that they provided to people. However two care staff members that we spoke with were not able to explain the basic principles of the MCA and confirmed that they had not received any training in this area.

Care staff were able to explain the importance of ensuring that people were able to choose and make decisions about the way in which they were supported. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes were recorded in their support plan. People and relatives confirmed that the care staff were aware of this and followed the directives outlined within the care plan.

An assessment of activities and daily living skills was completed as a pre-service assessment to determine whether the service was able to meet the needs of the person requiring care and support. Care plans had been signed by the person receiving care and support and where the person was unable to sign, relatives had signed on their behalf. People and relatives confirmed that they were involved in the planning of their care and were changes were required, appropriate discussions and communication took place between the person and the service.

People and relatives told us that where they had any concerns or complaints, they knew who to speak with in order to raise the concern and felt confident that these would be dealt accordingly. People and relatives also told us that they were positive about the management of the service but felt that communication between office staff and care staff could be better improved.

The provider carried out six monthly quality surveys in order to obtain feedback from people and relatives about the quality of care they received and to highlight where improvements could be made.

The registered manager had a number of quality assurance systems to allow for management oversight with a view to improving and continued learning in order to provide a high quality care service. These included spot checks, random audits of people’s care plans and care staff files, medicine audits and onsite care staff supervisions.

The provider had positive links with the local community and were involved in local community events which included the service offering free blood pressure checks to the community and awareness sessions on mental health issues and the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS).

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 July 2016

The service was safe. People told us that they felt safe with and trusted the care staff that supported them.

The service identified and assessed people’s individual risks and provided clear guidance and direction to care staff on how to reduce and/or mitigate risks to ensure people’s safety.

Where people were supported with their medicines, appropriate systems and processes were in place to make sure this was done safely. Care staff and records showed that they had received training in the management of medicines.

Safe and robust recruitment systems were in place to ensure that only suitable staff were recruited to support vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 July 2016

The service was effective. People and relatives told us that they felt staff had the appropriate level of skills and knowledge to support people efficiently.

Care staff told us and records confirmed that they had received training in areas that they required in order to deliver care and support.

Most care staff understood the principles of the MCA however, two care staff had not received any training in this area and could not explain what the MCA was and how this would impact on the care and support that they delivered.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 July 2016

The service was caring. People and relatives confirmed that they received care and support from a regular team of care staff with whom they had developed positive relationships with.

As part of the inspection process we visited people in their own homes. During this time we observed positive interactions between care staff and people using the service.

Care plans provided detailed information about the person which included their life history, likes and dislikes and direction on how they would like their care and support to be delivered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 July 2016

The service was responsive. People and relatives told us that they knew who to speak with if they had any complaints or concerns and were confident that these would be dealt with.

Care plans were developed and written in partnership with the people requiring a service and their relatives. Care plans that we looked at evidenced that regular reviews were taking place and where changes were required the care plan had been updated accordingly. However, the service had not clearly evidenced that people and relatives had been involved with the review process.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 July 2016

The service was well-led. The registered manager had systems in processes in place to check areas of service delivery so that potential issues could be identified and as a result learning and improvements could be made.

People and relatives were asked to complete six monthly quality surveys to monitor and gain feedback about the quality of care that was being delivered.

People, relatives and care staff were positive about the registered manager and the overall management of the service although some relatives did comment that communication between office staff and care staff could be better improved.