We inspected Rowanberries Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) on 18 July 2016 and our inspection was announced to ensure management was going to be available. The service was last inspected in October 2013 when it was found to be compliant in all areas inspected at that time. Rowanberries DCA operates within the Rowanberries Housing with Care complex in the village of Clayton, about three miles from Bradford city centre and is part of the Methodist Homes (MHA) group. The agency is part of an integrated care scheme which aims to support older people to live as independently as possible within their own home. Out of 46 apartments, 43 people currently receive care and support from the DCA. Staffing is on-site, 24 hours a day which includes a chaplain, and there are extensive communal facilities including a restaurant/bistro, shop and lounges.
A registered manager was employed by the service. 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 was off work due to illness on the day of inspection and the service was supported by the deputy manager and a registered manager from another similar MHA service.
People told us they felt safe when visited by the staff at the service and there were enough staff to support their needs. Some staff told us they would value an extra member of staff during busy morning periods, although the service deployed extra staff according to people's dependency needs.
Safeguarding procedures were in place and both people and staff were aware of what to do if there were any areas of concern. Risk assessments had mostly been completed where necessary although one bed rail assessment still required completion. We found accidents and incidents had been documented and appropriate risk assessments completed following these.
An effective medicines management system was in place. People received or were prompted to take medicines at the correct times.
A robust recruitment policy was in place with appropriate checks to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff had access to regular mandatory and service specific training and received regular supervisions and annual appraisals.
The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and no-one was currently subject to Deprivation of Liberties Safeguarding (DoLS). We saw care was provided in the least restrictive way possible, people were asked for consent and independence was encouraged.
People had access to a range of health care professionals and were supported to access these if unable to do so independently.
People praised the staff and told us they were kind, caring, compassionate and respectful of their privacy and dignity. They told us they were involved in the planning of their care, which was responsive to their changing needs.
Staff had a good understanding of people's likes, dislikes and care needs and enjoyed working at the service. Morale appeared good.
Detailed, person specific care records were in place which included assessments of people's care needs. People told us they had been involved in the planning of their care.
We saw the service promoted people's choice in all aspects of the service and we saw examples of the service respecting these choices.
The service employed a chaplain and an activities coordinator. A wide range of activities were on offer to promote social interaction, subject to people's choice.
Although only a small amount of complaints had been received, we saw these had been taken seriously and thoroughly investigated with outcomes and actions noted. People told us they had no complaints about the service.
People told us they felt able to approach the management with any concerns and had met the registered manager before they moved to the service.
Staff felt valued and supported by the management team, who in turn received effective support from the provider. Regular staff and management meetings were in place.
Regular tenant meetings were held to discuss a range of topics and to address any concerns.
A range of up to date audits and quality assurance tools were in place to ensure any issues were identified, remedial actions put in place and lessons learned.
Statutory notifications had been received by the Commission in a timely manner.