You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Capital Homecare (UK) Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 March 2018

We undertook an announced inspection on 4 and 7 December 2017 of Capital Homecare (UK) Limited. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults and older adults living in their own houses and flats in the community.

At the time of the inspection, 426 people were receiving personal care and support from this 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.

At the last comprehensive inspection we carried out on the 27 February 2017 and 01 March 2017, we found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We received an action plan from the provider which showed what they would do and by when to improve the key questions, is it safe, is it effective, is it responsive and is it well led to at least Good. During this inspection, we found that the service had taken appropriate action to improve on and meet the breaches of regulations we previously identified.

At our previous inspection we found complete records had not been maintained in relation to the support people needed with their medicines. During this inspection we found that the service had taken steps to address this. Records showed Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were completed fully and people’ s care plans clearly outlined the level of support people required with their medicines. There were medicines audits in place which identified any discrepancies and highlighted better practice. Staff had received medicines training and policies and procedures were in place.

At our previous inspection we found consent had not been obtained in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). During this inspection the service had taken steps to address these issues. Records showed where a person lacked the capacity to make a specific decision, people's families were involved in making a decision in the person's best interests. Care plans were signed by people or their representative to indicate that they had consented to the care provided. There was a MCA policy in place and staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood the implications of the MCA and were aware of the importance of obtaining people's consent regarding their care and support.

At our previous inspection, we found systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service were not always effective. During this inspection, we found that the service had taken steps to address this. The service had updated their quality assurance systems and undertook a range of checks and audits of the service. Spot checks were conducted to assess staff performance and competency. People and relatives spoke positively about the way the service monitored the quality of care they received.

The service also obtained feedback about the quality of the service people received through review meetings, telephone monitoring and satisfaction surveys. Records showed positive feedback had been provided about the service.

At our previous inspection, we found records of staff members' full employment history and consideration of any gaps in employment had not been maintained. During this inspection, we found that the service had taken steps to address this. Records showed any gaps in staff members employment had now been accounted for. Appropriate recruitment checks has been undertaken to ensure people were safe and not at risk of being supported by staff that were unsuitable.

Processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm and staff demonstrated that they were aware of these. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was safe.

People and relatives we spoke with told us people were safe. There were processes in place to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure there were sufficient and competent staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Appropriate employment checks were carried out before staff started working at the service.

Risks to people were identified and managed so that people were safe and their freedom supported and protected.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the management and administration of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was effective.

People told us staff were good at their jobs. Staff felt supported and had completed relevant training to enable them to care for people effectively.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA). Staff asked for people’s consent before they provided care and support.

People's health care needs and medical history were detailed in their care plans. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care and support provided by the service.

People were treated with dignity and respect and were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

People were provided with information about the service.

Review of care meetings had been conducted with people in which aspects of their care was discussed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans included information about people's individual needs and choices.

There were arrangements in place for people’s needs to be regularly assessed, reviewed and monitored.

The service had a complaints policy in place and there were clear procedures for receiving, handling and responding to comments and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 March 2018

The service was well led.

People and relatives spoke positively about the management of the service.

Staff were supported by management and told us they were approachable if they had any concerns.

The quality of the service was monitored. Regular checks were carried out and there were systems in place to make necessary improvements.