Date of assessment: 28 January 2025 to 22 February 2025. The service provided personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this assessment 9 people received care. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing, recruitment, governance and complaints. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations. Staff told us they received good support, there was good teamwork and they received the training they needed. Staff understood the safeguarding and whistle blowing process. They felt confident to raise concerns and felt they would be listened to. New staff were recruited safely. The provider undertook regular medicines audits to check people received their medicines correctly. However, only 1 person was currently being supported with medicines. The provider had effective quality assurance (QA) systems, which had been successful in identifying areas for improvement and learning lessons. There had been no incidents and accidents logged since we last assessed the service. There were opportunities for staff to provide feedback. The provider worked with external partners to ensure people received the care they needed. The provider had plans to improve and develop the service moving forward.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-10478669630.
CSS Care Ltd is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to adults with a range of support needs, in their own homes. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. The service was providing personal care to 15 people at the time of our inspection. The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns raised around governance and management at the service. We carried out assessment activity between 13 March and 4 April 2024; reviewing elements of the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We identified 5 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to; safe care and treatment, staffing, recruitment, governance and complaints. Incidents, accidents and complaints were not always reported or recorded meaning we could not be assured appropriate action had been taken. Medication records were poor, and safeguarding concerns were not fully investigated. We noted issues with staff training and supervision; and recruitment processes were not robust, meaning we could not be confident staff were capable or of good character. Information about people’s care needs and risks were not always available for staff to refer to, and sometimes details were inconsistent. There was a lack of regular auditing which meant the safety and quality of care was not effectively monitored. Policies were not being followed. During assessment, concerns with the management structure were identified. As such, the provider implemented immediate changes. The existing nominated individual stepped down and the manager took over this role. A nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. The provider intended to recruit a replacement manager. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-10478669630.
First inspection of CSS Care Ltd, a small domiciliary care service, rated Good overall and across all five key questions. Minor shortfalls were identified in risk assessment records, personalisation of care plans, medication record keeping and COVID test reporting, all of which the registered manager was already addressing.
Concerns (6)
moderateCare planning: “the risk assessments were lengthy and guidance for staff was not always clear or easy to locate”
moderateCare planning: “People's care plans were not always personalised or reflective of the care and support being given; information was duplicated and could be confusing”
moderateRecord keeping: “the records were difficult to follow and did not provide staff with sufficient guidance”
minorMedication management: “found a number of issues including gaps in recording, lack of witnessing for handwritten documents and unclear instructions”
minorInfection control: “We found not all staff reported their test result unless it was a positive result. We discussed this with the registered manager”
minorGovernance: “Prior to the inspection, we were made aware that an incident had not been notified to us”
Strengths
· Caring and consistent staff team described as amazing, caring, considerate and friendly
· Care delivered on time and in a flexible way; staff had enough time to complete visits without rushing
· Safe recruitment processes ensured new staff were suitable
· Staff received induction, training and regular supervision to support people well
· Service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act
Quality-Statement breakdown (22)
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseNot rated
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementNot rated
safe: Staffing and recruitmentNot rated
safe: Using medicines safelyNot rated
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionNot rated
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongNot rated
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawNot rated
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experience
Not rated
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietNot rated
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careNot rated
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceNot rated
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityNot rated
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care; Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceNot rated
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesNot rated
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsNot rated
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsNot rated
responsive: End of life care and supportNot rated
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringNot rated
well-led: How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candourNot rated
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsNot rated
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffNot rated
well-led: Continuous learning and improving care; Working in partnership with othersNot rated