You are here

Archived: Allied Healthcare - Ampthill Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 25 November 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 03 July 2015 and 14 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place over two days and was unannounced. The service provides personal care and support in people’s homes. At the time of the inspection there were 250 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 was also registered as the manager at another branch of the provider’s service.

During our inspection we found that people who used the service were not always safe. Personalised risk assessments were in place to reduce the risk of harm to people although some of these had not been updated for some time. Staff were aware of the safeguarding process. There were effective processes in place to administer people’s medicines and referrals to other health and social care professionals were made when appropriate to maintain people’s health and well-being.

There were enough skilled, qualified staff to provide for people’s needs. 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. They were trained and supported by way of supervisions, appraisals and regular audits of the way in which they delivered care.

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. However not all staff had a good understanding of MCA.

People were normally supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and well-being.

Staff were kind, considerate and respected people’s dignity.

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. However when people’s needs had changed the care plans were not always reviewed in a timely fashion.

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 managers. Regular quality audits were completed by the care quality staff but these did not always identify errors or areas for improvement. The provider also completed an independent audit of the service.

Inspection carried out on 5 September 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited NPSL trading as Allied Healthcare Leighton Buzzard we spoke with one relative and three people who used the service and six staff.

Care plans showed that people and their families had been involved in the development of their care plans. This was confirmed in discussions we had with people using the service.

Records confirmed that there was a robust recruitment procedure in place to ensure that people were cared for by staff who had the relevant checks completed before they commenced employment.

We spoke with a number of staff on duty who all told us they enjoyed working at Allied Healthcare. All staff we spoke with said they felt well supported by the team and the manager. Staff spoke positively about the training provided and one said: “The training is a great asset.”

We reviewed the systems in place for managing complaints should they arise, and saw that clear procedures provided guidance for people using the service, relatives and staff.