You are here

Archived: Angels Community Homecare Services Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 10 & 16 June 2015

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

This announced inspection took place on 10 and 16 June 2015. The provider had a short amount of notice that an inspection would take place so we could ensure staff would be available to answer any questions we had or provide information that we needed.

Angels Community Homecare Services is registered to deliver personal care. They provide care to people who live in their own homes within the community. At the time of our inspection 21 people received personal care from the provider.

At our last inspection in January 2015 the provider was not meeting the regulations which related to safeguarding people who used the service, requirements relating to workers and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. Evidence that we gathered during this, our most recent inspection, showed that some improvements had been made but further improvements were needed.

The registered manager had left the service in December 2014. 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. The provider had appointed a new manager in May 2015 who told us that they were in the process of applying for registration with us.

People we spoke with told us that they felt safe. We saw that there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse, including safe recruitment processes.

We found that medicines management within the service were safe; however recording of the timing of when people were supported to take their medicines was inconsistent.

There were a suitable amount of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner, with the appropriate skills, experience and training. Staff told us that they were being provided with the training that they required.

Structures for supervision allowing staff to understand their roles and responsibilities were in place.

Systems were not always effective in demonstrating people’s level of mental capacity and/or any potential risks for staff to consider. The manager showed us a new system that was currently being implemented to improve and to develop more consistency in care records for staff to refer to.

Staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity whilst encouraging them to remain as independent as possible. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the way the service communicated with them.

Feedback was sought from people and their relatives. The manager told us that on receipt of any negative comments, they had contacted the person and resolved any issues they raised; however they were unable to demonstrate this to us as they had not appropriately documented, analysed or outlined any plans for improvements as a result.

Care was planned with people and their relative’s involvement; care plans were not always detailed enough in respect of people’s disabilities and/or failed to outline their medical conditions clearly for staff to be aware of.

Information was provided for people about how to make a complaint. People and their relatives told us they felt confident that any concerns or complaints they made would be dealt with appropriately.

Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and provider. Systems were in place to regularly to develop and involve staff through supervision and staff meetings.

We found that the provider had made improvements to how they monitored and quality assured the service provided. However, we identified a number of areas that required improvement to ensure these systems were more robust.

Inspection carried out on 12 and 14 January 2015

During a routine inspection

This announced inspection took place on 10 and 16 June 2015. The provider had a short amount of notice that an inspection would take place so we could ensure staff would be available to answer any questions we had or provide information that we needed.

Angels Community Homecare Services is registered to deliver personal care. They provide care to people who live in their own homes within the community. At the time of our inspection 21 people received personal care from the provider.

At our last inspection in January 2015 the provider was not meeting the regulations which related to safeguarding people who used the service, requirements relating to workers and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. Evidence that we gathered during this, our most recent inspection, showed that some improvements had been made but further improvements were needed.

The registered manager had left the service in December 2014. 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. The provider had appointed a new manager in May 2015 who told us that they were in the process of applying for registration with us.

People we spoke with told us that they felt safe. We saw that there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse, including safe recruitment processes.

We found that medicines management within the service were safe; however recording of the timing of when people were supported to take their medicines was inconsistent.

There were a suitable amount of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner, with the appropriate skills, experience and training. Staff told us that they were being provided with the training that they required.

Structures for supervision allowing staff to understand their roles and responsibilities were in place.

Systems were not always effective in demonstrating people’s level of mental capacity and/or any potential risks for staff to consider. The manager showed us a new system that was currently being implemented to improve and to develop more consistency in care records for staff to refer to.

Staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity whilst encouraging them to remain as independent as possible. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the way the service communicated with them.

Feedback was sought from people and their relatives. The manager told us that on receipt of any negative comments, they had contacted the person and resolved any issues they raised; however they were unable to demonstrate this to us as they had not appropriately documented, analysed or outlined any plans for improvements as a result.

Care was planned with people and their relative’s involvement; care plans were not always detailed enough in respect of people’s disabilities and/or failed to outline their medical conditions clearly for staff to be aware of.

Information was provided for people about how to make a complaint. People and their relatives told us they felt confident that any concerns or complaints they made would be dealt with appropriately.

Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and provider. Systems were in place to regularly to develop and involve staff through supervision and staff meetings.

We found that the provider had made improvements to how they monitored and quality assured the service provided. However, we identified a number of areas that required improvement to ensure these systems were more robust.

Inspection carried out on 15 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service so we could consider our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? One inspector carried out this inspection.

There were 38 people using the service at the time of our inspection not all of them were receiving support with their personal care. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with one person who used the service and five relatives, five members of staff supporting them, the manager of the service and from looking at records. We also received some information from a local authority that commissioned services from Angels Community Homecare.

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

Is the service safe?

People and their relatives confirmed that they believed that the service was safe. Their comments included: "I feel confident about the safety of my relative" and "My relative feels safe; I have had no adverse comments (from them)." Care staff we spoke with knew the people who used the service well and knew the risks to their health and well-being.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that medication was administered safely.

There were enough committed staff to provide care and support needed and they were supported by qualified senior staff. There were not enough of the direct care staff with an appropriate qualification in health and social care and a number of the care staff were in the process of becoming qualified to ensure that people's needs would always be appropriately met. Some people told us that there were too many different staff providing care and support for their relative but all of the people confirmed that the care provided was safe.

Is the service effective?

People's healthcare and support needs had been assessed before people received the service and care plans were in place. Reviews were undertaken on a routine basis.

There were effective arrangements in place to ensure that staff had equipment to help prevent the spread of infection. Staff and people we spoke with confirmed that this equipment was available and used. Staff were aware of the policies and procedures about infection control.

People and relatives told us that care staff provided care in the way that they were supposed to and were mostly prompt and stayed for the right amount of time.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service and relatives told us that care staff were caring. Their comments included: "Staff are never late they are marvellous," "Some care staff are very good and go that extra mile" and "some go out of their way to brighten my relative's day."

Care staff we spoke with spoke in kind way about the people they were supporting and knew about some of their interests and concerns.

Is the service responsive?

People and relatives told us that they could contact the service when needed. If they had concerns they told us that they could contact the manager and they would put it right.

We observed that where arrangements needed to be changed to fit in with the needs of people who used the service, the service tried to accommodate these needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service was led by a manager who had the qualifications, skills and experience to provide a good, well led service.

There was not a comprehensive system to bring together information from complaints, missed or late visits, spot checks and surveys of people's views. This meant that people were not benefiting from a service that monitored the service in a way that it could plan to continually improve.

We have asked the provider to tell us how they intend to make improvements and meet the requirement of the law in relation to quality assurance.

Inspection carried out on 16 August 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Angels Community Homecare Services was providing support to 31 people at the time of our inspection. We visited the office to look at records to check if improvements had been made to the training provided to staff and to see if appropriate systems for assessing the quality of the service were now in place. We did not speak to people during this visit, as this was a follow-up visit to check to see if improvements had been made to the records.

We found that staff were completing relevant training to ensure they had the skills and were competent to meet people’s needs safely.

We found that effective systems were in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.

Inspection carried out on 14 May 2013

During a routine inspection

Angels Community Homecare Services provided support to 33 people at the time of our inspection. We carried out telephone interviews with three people who received services, three relatives, and five care workers. The manager was based at the office and supported us with the inspection.

People and the relatives we spoke with confirmed they had been involved in making decisions about the care and support they wanted to receive. They told us they were satisfied with the service that was provided.

People told us that care workers respected their privacy, dignity and independence. One person said, “The carers are good, they explain everything, and do tasks the way I want them to. They always knock before they enter. I am very happy with what they do.” Another person told us, “The carers provide the support I need them to and they always ask me what I want.”

People told us they knew how to report any concerns they had about their own safety. We saw care workers had training to assist them in protecting people from harm.

The care workers we spoke with told us they were supported by the manager, and had completed an induction. However we found that care workers had not completed relevant training to ensure they had the skills and were competent to meet people’s needs safely.

We found that effective systems were not in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.