Date of assessment: 4 November 2024 to 27 November 2024. We met with the provider online, reviewed a range of documents and data, and made calls to people used the service, relatives, staff and external professionals. We looked at quality statements in Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. The service performed well against the statements we looked at. Staffing levels were safe and well planned, with low numbers of delayed calls and no significant concerns raised. Safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures were up to date and set out expectations for staff. The registered manager and staff worked well with other health and social care partners to reduce the risks people faced and improve their quality of life, and independence. Staff had regard to people’s rights and always sought consent appropriately. People and their relatives were involved in care reviews. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s needs and a shared understanding of the goals of the service, which were clearly set out.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude — set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-4020121686.
ASK4CARE Huddersfield received an overall Good rating at its first CQC ratings inspection in July 2018, with strengths across safe care, caring staff, responsive person-centred planning and effective governance. The sole area of Requires Improvement was in the Effective domain, where mental capacity assessments and best interest records for two people lacked sufficient documentation, prompting a recommendation to consult MCA best practice guidance.
Concerns (4)
moderateConsent / capacity — “For two people, who may lack the mental capacity to consent to their care plans, evidence of mental capacity assessment and best interest discussions needed to be improved.”
moderateRecord keeping — “relatives had signed the care plan on their behalf and it was not clear from records if these relatives had power of attorney to consent on the persons behalf.”
minorRecord keeping — “the second referee had failed to respond to the follow up requests by the service and these requests had not been recorded to evidence this.”
minorCommunication with families — “The registered manager was not aware of the Accessible Information Standard. This requires the service to ask, record, flag and share information about people's communication needs.”
Strengths
· People felt safe with staff; detailed risk assessments in place covering skin integrity, falls, medicines, fire safety, equipment and infection control.
· Electronic call monitoring system in place to flag missed or late calls; no significant missed calls reported.
· Safe recruitment practices followed with DBS checks carried out as standard.
· All staff trained in medicines administration; MARs routinely audited; annual medicines competence assessments planned.
· Staff received regular supervision, appraisals, field-based observations and a wide range of up-to-date training.
Quality-Statement breakdown (15)
safe: Safeguarding and protection from abuseGood
safe: Risk assessment and managementGood
safe: Staffing levels and call monitoringGood
safe: Medication managementGood
safe: Safe recruitmentGood
effective: Mental Capacity Act and consentRequires improvement
effective: Staff training, supervision and appraisalGood