Archived: Phoenix Professional Home Care

Updated 15 September 2015

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 30 July and 3 August 2015 and was unannounced and was undertaken by one inspector.

Before the inspection we contacted health and social care commissioners who place and monitor the care of people using the service. We also reviewed the information we held about the service, including statutory notifications that the provider had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we spoke with three people in their own homes, one family member and seven members of staff including care staff and management.

We spent some time observing care to help us understand the experience of people who used the services.

We reviewed the care records of six people who used the service and five staff recruitment files. We also reviewed records relating to the management and quality assurance of the service.

Updated 15 September 2015

This unannounced inspection took place on 30 July & 3 August 2015. This domiciliary care service is registered to provide personal care support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service supported 48 people.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 were not actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs. There were no formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had not received mental capacity or DoLS training.

This was a breach of Regulation 11: Need for consent. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the end of the report.

People were not always supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicine management systems in place were disorganised and required improvement. We found discrepancies on medicine administration record charts and there was no system for receiving medicines in to the service.

People told us that they felt safe in their own home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work at the home care service.

Care records contained risk assessments to protect people from identified risks and help to keep them safe. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures to take to minimise any risks.

People felt safe and there were clear lines of reporting safeguarding concerns to appropriate agencies and staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding adults.

Care plans were in place but information detailing how people wished to be supported and how they were involved in making decisions about their care was limited. People participated in a range of activities both in their home and in the community and they received the support they needed to do this. People were able to choose how they spent their time and what they did.

Staff had good relationships with the people who they cared for. Complaints were appropriately investigated and action was taken to make improvements to the service when this was found to be necessary. The manager was accessible and made visits to people using the service to monitor the quality of the service provided. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.