Archived: Universal Care Services Corby

The systems in place to monitor the quality and performance of the service were not always effectively acted upon. People were regularly asked for their feedback about the service but did not always feel action was taken to address any shortfalls.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

We found that the home was meeting all the minimum standards that were inspected.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Peoples needs had been assessed and care documents reflected peoples needs and provided care staff with clear information on how to safely care for people. Risk assessments had been put in place for people and staff were aware of the risks and how to manage them and protect people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with told us that staff were "always polite" and that the care they received was "quiet good". Staff told us that they felt supported and were able to put peoples needs first. We were told that training was good and staff were able to support people well. We saw that the care plans were regularly reviewed and contained detailed information about the person and their needs which meant that staff were kept aware of people's needs and were therefore able to provide the correct care and support.

Is the service caring?

People told us that staff were nice and pleasant. One person we spoke with said, 'they are like my family, I have got to know them well". Staff told us that it was a "good place to work" and that they were able to provide people with good care and preserve their privacy and dignity at all times. We saw from feedback provided in recent quality assurance surveys that people had rated the care as good.

Is the service responsive?

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and any changes were made quickly and staff made aware. We saw that any incidents were responded to and investigated by the provider and actions noted and followed up.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had a registered manager in place. Staff told us that the manager was approachable and quick to resolve any issues that staff had. We saw on the day of our inspection that new staff were attending an induction programme, and staff we spoke to told us that they received a good amount of training prior to starting work and that they would continuously be assessed for their competency.

We spoke with members of staff who told us training was 'brilliant' and gave them a good understanding of how to meet people's needs and what to do if there were any problems.

We also spoke to some of the people who used the service or their family members. One person told us, 'They are excellent. The carers are lovely.'

Another person told us, 'We are happy with them. They care for X and keep us up-to-date with developments.'

We looked and the Provider's policies and procedures for Safeguarding, for managing Quality Assurance and Complaints. We found that the policies in place meant that services were reviewed regularly and any concerns or complaints were managed appropriately.