You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 April 2017

This inspection took place on 9 March 2017 and was announced. We gave the registered provider 24 hours’ notice to ensure someone would be available at the service.

Aapna Services is a registered charity. The service specifically caters for people from the black minority ethnic communities in the Middlesbrough area providing culturally suitable services to enable people to live independently at home. The service is registered with the CQC to provide personal care to adults aged 18 and above. The service provides staff to support people with personal care as well as domestic duties, shopping, medical appointments and social outings.

We last inspected the service in January 2016 and rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement.’ We asked the registered provider to take immediate actions and at this inspection we found some improvements had been made to meet these regulations. However further improvements are required within management systems.

The service provides support to 52 people in their own homes, five of which required support with personal care.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

During our inspection we found the organisation was multi-cultural and was underpinned by values and a genuine desire to be inclusive.

People were supported by enough staff, at the right times to meet their needs safely and in a person centred way. Person centred means when a person is central to their care and treatment and their needs are met in a personalised way taking on board their preferences.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and personalised risk assessments were in place for people who used the service and staff.

People were supported to administer their own medicines safely at home.

We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining and verifying references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Staff received regular supervisions and opportunities for further personal development. Some staff appraisals had taken place and other were planned.

Staff were suitably trained to meet the needs of the people who used the service and an appropriate induction took place for new starters.

Training needs of the staff were recorded but they were not always monitored.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care plans were written in a person centred way.

Staff supported people who used the service with their social, cultural and religious needs. People who used the service told us that all staff were very caring in the way they supported them.

People who used the service told us they were treated with dignity and respect and felt very comfortable with their staff. They told us how they had learned from each other and had built trust and important relationships together.

People who used the service were aware of how to make a complaint if they needed too and complaints were managed appropriately.

The service had onsite facilities and activities for people to access.

Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and were comfortable raising any concerns.

The service had a range of audits in place to check the quality and safety of the service and actions plans and lessons learnt were part of their on-going quality review of the service. However quality assurance with the people who used the service was planned but at the time of our inspection hadn’t taken place.

The service worked in partnership with the local authority an

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 April 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were administered and recorded safely.

People felt safe being supported by the service in their own homes.

People had personalised risk assessments in place to enable them to take risks safely within their own home

Effective

Good

Updated 22 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff training was up to date and appropriate to meet people’s needs.

Peoples nutritional and hydration needs were met.

Peoples with special diets had their needs met either for health, culture or religion.

Staff had regular supervisions in place.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 April 2017

This service was caring.

People had access to advocacy if they needed.

People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Equality and diversity was paramount to the people who used the service and the staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 April 2017

This service was responsive.

People were supported in person centred ways to meet their individual, cultural and religious beliefs.

Peoples care plans were person centred

The complaints procedure was accessible and people knew how to complain if they needed to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 22 April 2017

This service was not always well led.

The service had not carried out any formal quality assurance work with the people who used the service and stakeholders.

Staff training was in place and improvements had been made to monitor them.

The service worked in partnership with the voluntary sector to promote support services and protect people from social isolation.