Archived: SureCare Oxfordshire

The service had 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.

At the last inspection in November 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to safety with respect of risk management, medicines management and ensuring people received their visits. At this inspection on 4 April 2017 we found improvements had been made. Risk assessments in relation to people’s individual risks were in place. These set out how to support people in a way that mitigated the hazards identified.

People’s medicines were managed safely and records had been completed.

There were enough care staff deployed by the service to support people. Although a system was being implemented to ensure visits were completed by care staff this was not operational at the time of the inspection. We were therefore not confident that the service would always know if a person had not been visited if they were unable to alert the office themselves. Checks were carried out on care staff before they began working at the service. Care staff had the knowledge and received training on how to recognise and report concerns to keep people safe.

At the last inspection in November 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to staff training and supervision. At this inspection on 4 April 2017 we found improvements had been made. People were supported by care staff that had the training and support from their managers to deliver effective care and carry out their roles and responsibilities.

The service followed the guidelines within the MCA and consent to care was sought before care was undertaken.

People’s hydration and nutrition needs were managed well. People were supported to have access to health professionals where needed.

People were supported by caring staff who took the time to get to know their needs. People were provided with information about their care and privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

People had been assessed to determine if the service was able to meet their needs. Care plans were accurate, up to date and contained personalised information about people’s care and emotional needs and relevant personal history. Regular reviews of people’s care needs had taken place. People knew how to complain and complaints were responded to in line with provider’s policy.

At the last inspection in November 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to their quality assurance systems. At this inspection on 4 April 2017 we found improvements had been made. The quality of the service was monitored and action taken if changes or improvements were needed.

The registered manager promoted a positive culture that meant people had personalised care from staff that cared for them. The service was well managed and care staff commented they felt supported and said how much they enjoyed their jobs. Records were well kept and were up to date which meant care was monitored closely.

At the last inspection in November 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to ensuring they notified us about important events. At this inspection on 4 April 2017 we found improvements had been made.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service as we had received concerns in relation to people’s safety. One of the reasons for initiating this inspection was the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had received some information relating to concerns about people’s safety in respect of how the service was being managed.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Although people we spoke with told us they felt safe we found a lack of evidence to assure us that all care staff had the necessary qualifications, skill and experience to carry out care tasks. Not all staff had received the training the provider had stated was necessary before they delivered care.

Risks to people’s specific needs had not been thoroughly assessed. This meant people could be at risk of unsafe care.

Staff had not received consistent supervision meetings with their managers to ensure they were supported to carry out their roles safely and effectively.

People and their relatives said most staff had a caring approach. Staff demonstrated knowledge about the people they supported and wanted to make a positive difference to people.

People were involved in assessments about their needs and in planning their care. However, care plans did not always reflect their current needs and the support they required to meet those needs.

Concerns or complaints had not always been responded to in line with the organisation’s policy.

The quality assurance systems were not monitoring performance to drive continuous improvement. We had identified a number of concerns during our inspection and we found there was a lack of monitoring by the provider and the registered manager.

The provider did not always send notifications to CQC as required by the conditions of their registration.

Following the inspection, the provider contacted us with an action plan addressing all the issues we identified during feedback on the day of our visit. The action plan had clear timescales set to address the concerns promptly.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. We also found one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

We found that the person's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Efforts were made to ensure the person's spiritual needs were met. Care was planned and carried out in a way that the person experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. The person's relative told us, 'They're so different from other agencies. They're always on time. They take her out for trips and the others never did. We're thrilled.'

The person being cared for was protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. They told us the care workers were "very particular". We found that the agency had systems in place to ensure they recruited appropriately skilled staff who were of good character.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.