The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: North Birmingham Home Care Also known as Perry Barr-Ladywood Home Care Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2nd Floor, 67 Sutton New Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 6QT (0121) 303 9253

Provided and run by:
Birmingham City Council

All Inspections

29 March 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 29 March 2017 and was announced. We previously inspected the service in December 2015 and identified a breach of the regulations because systems in place to monitor and manage the quality and safety of the service were not effective. After the inspection, the registered manager wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. At this inspection, we identified improvements in this area and found that all regulations were now being met.

North Birmingham Home Care provides a short term enablement service of care and support to people in their own homes. The service also provides support to people living in extra care schemes. At the time of our inspection, there were 142 people receiving the enablement service and 11 people receiving support through the extra care scheme.

There was a registered manager in place who was present throughout 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 were safe receiving support from staff who had access to information about their risks. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities in relation to raising concerns or suspicions of abuse to help protect people using the service. Systems were not always effective however for monitoring and reflecting the support people received in line with their needs and risks.

Many people told us that they were satisfied with the timings of their calls. People’s calls were monitored to ensure that their care needs could be met by staff. Systems were being further developed to ensure that people did not experience late and missed calls. Systems were not effective however to ensure that people received calls from consistent care staff.

A small number of people received support to help them take their medicines. We found that medicines management processes had improved at the service through monitoring processes and improving guidance for staff. Further improvement was required to bring the registered provider’s medicines policies in line with current good practice guidelines.

People were satisfied with the support they received from staff. Although staff had not received up-to-date core training in their roles, they told us that they felt able to request the support they needed and they felt equipped for their roles. Staff received support supervision, spot checks and staff meetings.

People were pleased with the support they received to prepare and have meals and staff sought guidance in people’s care plans to ensure they supported people safely. Whilst this was positive, records failed to reflect the appropriate support that people received. People were supported to seek further healthcare support to promote their health and wellbeing.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Staff described the positive rapport they developed with people using the service and how they promoted people’s independence in practice. People were involved in their care planning and their views respected, although people’s ongoing expressed preferences for consistent staff had not been addressed by the registered provider.

People received support that met their needs and this was monitored over the time they used the service. There was a complaints process in place which was followed appropriately although people we spoke with told us that they had no concerns about the service.

People and staff gave positive feedback about the service. People’s feedback was used to plan their care and improve their experience of using the service. Staff showed that they were engaged in their roles. The registered provider failed to ensure that systems were robust and that staff received up-to-date guidance to ensure the safety and quality of the service was maintained.

3 December 2015

During a routine inspection

The announced inspection took place on 3 December 2015 we gave 48 hours’ notice of our inspection to ensure that staff were available to provide the information we needed and so we could make arrangements to speak with people receiving a service. We last inspected this service on 19 September 2013 when the service was compliant with regulations.

The service provided personal care and support to people in their own homes. There were 209 people receiving this at the time of the inspection. Most people were receiving a six week enablement service to support them to regain their independence in daily living task. In addition people were signposted to other useful services that they could consider using in the local area. The service also provided on-going personal care support to some people who lived in extra care sheltered housing.

At the time of the inspection there was no manager registered with us. 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 registered manager position was vacant as the previous interim manager had recently cancelled their registration. They had only held an interim manager position whilst the previous manager had been on secondment to another post. The previous manager had now returned to the manager’s post and at the time of the inspection had not applied to again become registered.

People told us that they felt safe with the care staff who supported them. Staff reported to their supervisors when they thought people were unsafe and action was taken. Risk assessments had been undertaken when people may be at risk in their environment, or if they had specific health care needs. Action was taken to minimise these risks.

Where some people either needed reminding or needed support to take their medicines, staff supplied the required planned assistance. Records were not clear enough about their medicines or failed to show that people had received the support they required in a timely way. Records did not follow available good practice guidance. Management oversight and procedures of medicine administration was not robust enough to ensure that errors could be identified quickly.

People had informed the provider that the numbers of different care staff providing support to individual people was too high and failed to ensure that they knew who was going to be delivering their care and support needs. Some people were concerned that time critical services were not provided at time that they were needed and had been agreed.

The issues related to high numbers of staff and lack of management oversight of some records needs to be addressed. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

There were enough trained and appropriately recruited staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. Staff received regular supervision and had regular meetings to refresh their knowledge and discuss any concerns about people’s care.

People we spoke with told us that care staff only assisted them when they had given their consent. Care staff ensured that people who needed support with preparing meals and drinks received the support they needed. People told us that they were assisted to contact health professionals if they were unwell and care staff told us they were able to contact a range of health professionals if they were concerned.

All of the people we spoke with and comments on surveys we received or the completed surveys sent by the provider said that the care staff were very good, caring and supportive.

People were asked their views about the service as they came to the end of it and their views were considered. There was an appropriate complaint process when people had raised concerns about the service. Complaints or concerns raised were investigated and action taken where necessary.

Notifications about some incidents had not been sent to us as required by law. Immediately following the inspection the manager reviewed all of the incidents and sent to us a copy of the missing notifications.

The provider had processes for monitoring and improving the quality of the care people received. There were systems to signpost people with on-going support needs to services available in the community when the enablement service ended. Quality and safety checks had been made to ensure staff providing care to people in their own homes did this in the way each person preferred.  There were regular meetings with other managers and with other professionals supporting people in the community.

19 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we spoke with eight people that used the service, a relative, the manager, nine care workers and three homecare organisers.

All the people that we spoke with said that staff discussed their care with them before providing care. One person said, 'They explained things and talked to me about how I wanted things done.' We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

All the people and their relatives that we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care they received. One person told us, 'I think they are fantastic in every way. They make sure I am comfortable.' We found that care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Everyone that we spoke with told us that they felt safe with the staff that supported them. We found that people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

All the people that we spoke with during the inspection were complementary about the staff that supported them. We found that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Everyone that we spoke with said they were receiving a service that was reliable and of good quality. We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.