First inspection of this newly registered domiciliary care agency supporting around 40 people, rated Good overall and across all five key questions. Concerns were noted around late visits due to poorly organised rotas, communication with families, mixed staff experiences of management support, and some lack of detail in care notes and best interest records.
Concerns (9)
moderate
Missed or late visits
: “Some people and their relatives told us care visits were often later than expected, and felt this was due to poorly organised rotas.”
moderateCare planning: “the service was not always well organised, citing poorly organised visit plans”
moderateLeadership: “Some staff told us they did not always feel supported by management; some people using the service and their relatives were also critical of leadership within the service”
moderateCommunication with families: “telling us they felt communication could be improved.”
minorRecord keeping: “We checked care notes, and found they were clear and evidenced the care provided to people, although at times lacked detail.”
minorConsent / capacity: “the provider had systems in place for obtaining people's consent, or acting in their best interests, although best interest records lacked detail.”
minorStaffing levels: “The registered manager told us they had experienced some difficulty in recruiting or retaining staff”
minorSupervision / appraisal: “Most staff we spoke with told us they found the support they received to be good, although this was not every staff member's experience.”
minorPerson-centred care: “some people's relatives raised concerns about some domestic tasks not always being completed to a good standard.”
Strengths
· Medicines were managed safely with accurate records and regular reviews
· People felt safe and confident to raise concerns; safeguarding training in place
· Thorough recruitment with appropriate background checks
· Wide range of relevant staff training, praised by staff
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseNot rated
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementNot rated
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionNot rated
safe: Staffing and recruitmentNot rated
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongNot rated
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceNot rated
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceNot rated
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawNot 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
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careNot rated
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; equality and diversityNot rated
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceNot rated
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsNot rated
responsive: Planning personalised care to meet people's needs, preferences, interests and give them choice and controlNot rated
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsNot rated
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements; Continuous learning and improving careNot rated
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringNot rated
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staff; Working in partnership with othersNot rated