Archived: Long Lea Home Support

Updated 1 March 2017

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.

The inspection visit to the office took place on 19 January 2016 and was announced. We told the provider in advance we were visiting, so they had time to arrange for us to speak with people who used the service. The inspection was conducted by one inspector and an expert by experience.

Prior to the inspection visit, we reviewed information we held about the service, for example, information from previous inspection reports and statutory notifications the provider sent to us. A statutory notification is information about important events which affect the service which the provider is required to send to us by law. We also contacted commissioners of the service. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority. They had no further information to tell us that we were not already aware of.

We undertook a survey prior to our inspection to give people the opportunity to give us their views about the service. We posted 50 surveys to randomly selected people that used the service. We received a return rate of 28% which consisted of 14 surveys completed by people that used the service and 3 completed by people’s relatives.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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. We received the PIR and used the

information to plan our inspection.

During our inspection visit, we spoke with the registered manager, the operations manager, the care co-ordinator, and four care staff. We also spoke with three people who used the service, and five relatives over the telephone.

We reviewed six people’s care plans, to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We looked at other records related to people’s care and how the service operated to check how the provider gathered information to improve the service. This included medicine records, staff recruitment records, the provider’s quality assurance audits and records of complaints.

Updated 1 March 2017

This inspection took place on 19 January 2017 and was announced.

Long Lea Home Support is a medium sized independent domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people in their own homes in North Warwickshire. People who receive a service include those living with physical frailty due to older age and / or health

conditions including Parkinson’s disease and dementia. At the time of the inspection the agency was providing a service to 56 people. Visits to people ranged from quarter of an hour up to a 24 hour service. The frequency of visits ranged from several visits each day to a weekly visit depending on people’s individual needs.

The service had a 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. The registered manager had oversight of the service, but an ‘operational manager’ oversaw the day to day running of the service.

The service was last inspected on 16 and 19 October 2015, when we found the provider was compliant with the fundamental standards described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. However, the service was awarded an overall rating of 'requires improvement'. This was because procedures and policies were not always followed to ensure people consistently received safe, effective and responsive care. The provider’s quality assurance checks did not identify when improvements needed to be made.

At this inspection, we checked to see if improvements had been made. We found some

actions had been taken and improvements had been made, but there were still areas where improvement was needed.

People’s care records did not always include the information staff needed to be able to meet and respond to people’s identified needs, but plans were in place to further improve care plans as the provider moved to an electronic care records system.

Risk assessments were mostly in place, and the provider planned to improve the way risk was assessed and recorded. However, some risk assessments were not available for us to review, and in some cases where risk had been identified, risk assessments had not been completed.

Records of pre-employment checks made prior to staff starting work, were not always clear enough to demonstrate the provider ensured people were protected.

People were supported with their medicines by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines safely. People told us their medicines were given in a timely way and as prescribed, and records showed this.

People told us they felt safe and comfortable with the staff who supported them. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from abuse, and were supported by the provider who acted on concerns raised and ensured staff followed safeguarding policies and procedures.

There were enough staff to keep people safe, and staff mostly supported people as and when agreed in their care plans.

People and their relatives told us staff mostly had the skills and knowledge they needed to support people effectively. Staff had regular supervision meetings, and their practice was observed and assessed regularly to ensure they remained effective in their role.

People told us staff asked for consent before providing them with support. Information on the support people needed with decision making was not always clearly recorded. Staff and the registered manager had a reasonable understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People had access to health professionals when needed, and care records showed support provided was in line with what had been recommended.

People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver personalised care and gave staff information about people’s communication, their likes, dislikes and preferences.

People and their relatives knew how to complain, and complaints were dealt with according to the provider’s policy and procedure.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the support provided, and these had been used to develop action plans to help the service improve. Key messages were shared with staff through team meetings, and staff felt well supported by the senior management team.