You are here

Archived: Allied Healthcare - Ampthill Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 January 2017

The inspection took place over three days and was initially unannounced. The service provides personal care and support in people’s homes. At the time of the inspection there were 301 people who used the service.

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. The registered manager had a more regional role within the provider’s organisation and was the registered manager for a number of the provider’s services. Day to day management of the Ampthill service was carried out by two care delivery managers. The registered manager retained oversight of the service.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which included ones on safeguarding, whistleblowing and implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were protected from the risk of harm by effective assessment and management plans to reduce the risks to them. These covered both personal risks to people and environmental risks. There were plans in place for emergencies that might occur and the service operated an ‘on call’ system that meant that people could contact them on a 24 hour basis.

Robust recruitment and selection processes were in place and the provider had taken steps to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people who used the service. Staff were trained and supported by way of supervisions, appraisals and regular audits of the way in which they delivered care. Staff were provided with specialist training when this was needed to provide care for people. Where the service had been unable to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of staff in a certain geographical area to provide the care people needed, they had worked with the local authority to find alternative care providers for people in that area.

People had been involved in determining their support needs and the way in which their support was to be delivered. Their consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were met. They were treated with dignity and respect by staff who were kind and caring. People were encouraged to make choices of their own and to maintain their independence.

People and their relatives had been involved in deciding what support they were to receive and how this was to be given. Relatives were involved in the regular review of people’s support needs and were kept informed of any changes to a person’s health or well-being.

There was an up to date complaints policy in place and a copy of the complaints system was included in the folder kept at people’s home, which also included other information about the service.

There was an open culture and staff were supported by the care delivery managers and the registered manager. Regular quality audits were completed by the care quality staff and any areas for improvement were addressed with individual members of staff by the care delivery managers.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 January 2017

The service was safe.

Personalised risk assessments and risk management plans were in place, and updated on a regular basis to reduce the risk of harm to people.

Staff were aware of the safeguarding process.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to provide the care people needed.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 January 2017

The service was effective.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met.

Staff were trained and supported by way of supervisions and appraisals.

People’s consent was gained for the support provided to them.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 January 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring.

Staff promoted people’s dignity, treated them with respect and maintained their confidentiality.

People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People had been involved in developing their care plans and personalised plan of scheduled visits which detailed what care workers would do at each visit.

There was an effective complaints system in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 January 2017

The service was well-led.

Day to day management of the service was carried out by two care delivery managers, although there was a registered manager in place who had general oversight of the service.

There was an open culture at the service and people and staff found the management to be approachable and supportive.

The provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service.