Archived: Surecare

Updated 21 January 2015

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

This inspection was completed on 6 August 2014 by an inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert-by-Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

The service was previously inspected on 18 September 2013. The September 2013 inspection was a follow up inspection to check compliance in three areas that had previously been non-compliant. The service was compliant when we inspected it on 18 September 2013.

There was limited information for us to review before we carried out our inspection. The provider had not returned their provider’s information return within the timescale required. No reason was given for this. The provider information return is information we have asked the provider to send us to explain how they are meeting the requirements of the five key questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

We reviewed other information that we held about the service such as notifications, which are events that happen in the service that the provider is required to tell us about, and information from other stakeholders such as the local authority. When we inspected the service we discovered that the service had changed their address. They had failed to notify us of this.

As part of our inspection we spoke with eight people using the service and eight relatives. We spoke with six care staff face to face and a further two care staff over the telephone. On the day of our site visit to the agency office we liaised and had discussions with the provider and manager. We also contacted the local authority contracts manager to gain their views about the service.

As part of this inspection we looked at six people’s care plans and care records. We looked at the recruitment, induction, training and support records for five members of staff. We looked at other records such as complaints and compliments information and quality monitoring and audit information.

Updated 21 January 2015

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 was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

Surecare is a domiciliary care agency supplying care services within a person's own home. Surecare provides care for people of a range of ages and with a variety of different care needs. At the time of our inspection on 6 August 2014 85 people were using the service.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. At the time of our inspection there was a manager in post but they were not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission.

People told us that they felt safe with staff working for the service and had no concerns about how they were treated. They felt that staff worked in ways that that ensured their health and safety such as using equipment correctly.

People’s needs were assessed with their involvement and care was planned and delivered in accordance with their wishes. This showed us that the service sought to work with people and support their needs in ways that they preferred.

Staff had the knowledge and skills that they needed to support people. They received training to enable them to understand people’s diverse needs and work in ways that were safe and protected people. Staff received some on-going support but this needed to be made more consistent. Not all staff had regular opportunities for one to one supervision to discuss any practice issues or training needs. Staff had a good awareness of emergency procedures so that they would act properly to support people in the event of an emergency.

When the service took on new staff they ensured that proper checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The service had procedures in place to ensure that when people needed help to manage their medicines, this was done safely with proper records kept.

Staff spoken with demonstrated a caring approach to their role and told us that they enjoyed their work. They outlined their working practices which showed us that staff worked in ways that respected people’s privacy, dignity and individuality.

People spoken with showed us that people were able to complain or raise any concerns if they needed to. We saw that where people had raised issues that these were taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The service worked well with the local authority that contracted with them and had regular meetings and quality reviewing processes in place. However, we found that the service needed to improve their practice in working with the Care Quality Commission in order that we were provided with information when needed or requested.