Archived: Ivy Care Limited

Updated 8 October 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 13 September 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure there would be someone available at the office to access the records. The inspection was conducted by one adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about Ivy Care, including any statutory notifications that the provider had sent us and any safeguarding information we had received. Notifications are made to us by providers in line with their obligations under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. These are records of incidents that have occurred within the service or other matters that the provider is legally obliged to inform us of.

Additionally, we contacted local authority staff to obtain their feedback about the service. On this occasion, we asked for a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. All of this information informed our planning of the inspection.

As part of the inspection, and prior to the visit, we carried out surveys with people who used the service, three people returned a response. During the inspection, we spoke with the provider (who is also the registered manager) and one member of staff. We reviewed a range of care records and the records kept regarding the management of the service. This included looking at three people’s care records, three staff files and other records relating to the safety and quality of the service. After the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service and one relative on the telephone to gather their feedback of the service.

Updated 8 October 2016

Ivy Care Ltd is a small local domiciliary care agency based in South Kirkby. The service provided care and support to 11 older people in their own homes in the South Kirkby, South Elmsall and Upton areas of Wakefield.

This inspection took place on the 13 September 2016 and was announced. This is the first inspection of the service.

The provider was also the registered manager. 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 told us they felt safe in their own home being supported by the staff. The registered manager and staff had a thorough understanding of safeguarding procedures. No incidents of a safeguarding nature had occurred, however, the registered manager was fully aware of her responsibilities with regards to protecting people from harm or improper treatment. Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the service was operated well.

People and staff told us there were enough staffed employed by the service to ensure it was run safely and efficiently. We confirmed this through records. We saw staff rotas were planned a week in advance and people received a consistent and reliable service. Electronic call monitoring was used to ensure no calls were missed.

Care plans were very person-centred. Care needs and risks were regularly reviewed and updated. Explanations of how to mitigate risk and control measures were in place to guide staff in the event of an incident.

No accidents or incidents had occurred at the service. However, the registered manager had a system in place to record, investigate and monitor these should an event occur. The registered manager was aware of her responsibility to report incidents to external bodies, such as the local authority and CQC, as necessary.

Medicines were managed well and staff demonstrated that they followed safe working practices. People were encouraged and supported by staff to self-medicate wherever possible. Medicines were administered safely and Medicine Administration Records (MARs) were used to accurately record any assistance given.

There was a recruitment policy in place; however we have made a recommendation to tighten up the procedures in order to ensure the safe recruitment of staff is more robust.

We saw evidence of an induction process and staff confirmed they had completed a thorough induction and had shadowed more experience workers. Training in key topics such as safeguarding, safe handling of medicines and food hygiene had been undertaken. Formal supervision sessions, including a probationary period review had taken place, as well as annual appraisals and regular informal discussions. The registered manager was in daily contact with the staff through a variety of communication methods. Staff told us they felt supported and valued at work.

The registered manager and staff displayed an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2008 (MCA) and their own responsibilities; however they had not undertaken formal training. We saw examples of staff supporting people to make decisions in their best interests.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Nutrition and hydration were monitored by staff as necessary. Staff had been made aware of allergies and wheat and gluten intolerances.

The staff we spoke with displayed genuine, kind and caring attitudes. They spoke affectionately about people and knew them very well. In the feedback we received from people, they said staff offered them choices and encouraged them to make decisions. They also told us their privacy and dignity was maintained and staff respected them and their home. The daily notes we reviewed reflected these behaviours.

The registered manager told us there had been no complaints about the service. People told us they had nothing to complain about but knew how to do so if necessary. The complaints procedure had been shared with the people who used the service.

Six-monthly surveys were used to gather the views and opinions of people and their relatives about the service they received. The registered manager promoted the use of advocates and was aware of how to refer a person to a local advocacy service should it be necessary.

All of the records we examined where accurate, detailed, up to date and well maintained. Regular audits and ‘spot checks’ of the service were carried out by the registered manager. This demonstrated the registered manager had oversight and monitored the safety and quality of the service.