The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Care At Your Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Abacus House, 118 Church Street, Market Deeping, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE6 8AL (01778) 380654

Provided and run by:
Country Court Care Limited

All Inspections

16 June 2015

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of Care At Your Home on 16 June 2015. Care At Your Home provides a personal care service to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 60 people were receiving a personal care service.

There was not 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. There was a manager in post and they had started the process to add the service to their current registration with the Care Quality Commission.

We last inspected Care At Your Home in April 2014. At that inspection we found the service was not meeting all the essential standards that we assessed. We found that the registered provider could not demonstrate they had on-going quality monitoring process in place which highlighted when improvements were required.

At this inspection we found that the registered provider had ensured that people’ care records had been updated and reflected their current care needs and quality processes were in place.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and to report on what we find. The manager and care staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and had received appropriate training.

When people were visited by care staff they said that they were caring and considerate and they felt safe with them.

There were suitable arrangements in place to ensure people received their medicines safely and checks were undertaken on care staff before they started to work for the service. This ensured that only suitable staff were recruited to provide care and support to people.

Systems were in place to make sure care staff were provided with relevant training so that they had the skills to do their job.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.

People were supported to eat and drink. Staff liaised with people’s doctors and other healthcare professionals as required. Generally, care staff were able to accommodate last minute changes to appointments as requested by the person who used the service or their relatives.

The manager undertook checks to review the quality of the service provided to people who used the service. There was positive feedback from all staff about the manager of the service and they told us they felt well supported by them.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and we saw evidence that these were actioned.

15, 16 April 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection of the 15 and 16 April 2014, we spoke with seven people who used the service and one relative of a person using the service by telephone. We gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions. This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us that they were supported by kind and respectful staff. One person told us that they, 'Would not change them for anything.' Another person said that, 'They are wonderful. The care I get from them is great.'

People said that staff were on time for the majority of their care calls. On occasion when a staff member was running late, people told us that the office would normally inform them of the delay and that this was their preference.

Is the service responsive?

We looked at ten people's care records that were held in the agencies office. We saw that people's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been documented. People we spoke with told us that their support and care had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

People told us that they knew how to contact the provider as they had been given the information on how to do so and that it was recorded in their care record.

One person we spoke with told us that, 'You get the feeling that they are so kind and pay attention to detail.' One person talked us through an occasion when a care call was missed. On contact with the provider, who had apologised, another staff member was organised quickly and sent to attend the call.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told that they felt safe. In the care records we looked at we saw that risk assessments regarding people's individual needs were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these risks. However, some of the care records examined had conflicting information documented. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make the improvements required to ensure that all records for people using the service are accurate.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Court of Protection, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider was able to demonstrate to us a good understanding of this.

Is the service effective?

People's care and support needs had been assessed and care plans were in place within the care records we looked at.

Eight out of ten care records we examined were not signed by the person using the service to demonstrate that they had agreed their plan of care. The provider told us that all of the duplicate care records held within people's own homes were signed. People using the service we spoke with told us that they had no concerns and that their care and support needs were met.

Is the service well led?

Quality monitoring systems were in place so that people were listened to and were safe from the risk of unsafe and inappropriate support and care. However, we found that not all care records we looked at were an accurate record of the care and support being delivered. These inaccuracies had not been found by the provider's on-going quality monitoring process.

The five staff members we spoke with demonstrated to us an understanding of safeguarding and what to do and who to contact if they had a concern. Safeguarding policies we examined detailed the different external organisations that staff could contact should they wish to do so.

Records showed us that staff were trained to deliver safe care and support.