Universal Care Services Hinckley

Updated 13 February 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. An acting manager was responsible for the day to day management of the service and had applied to become registered with the CQC.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service short notice of making calls to people. This was because we needed the service to seek people’s permission for us to contact them and to provide people’s contact details.

Inspection activity started on 30 December 2019 and ended on 27 January 2020. We visited the office location on 20, 21 and 22 January 2020.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We made phone calls to people and visited people in their homes. We spoke with 11 people and 12 relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with twenty-two members of staff including the nominated individual, acting manager, operations manager, compliance manager, consultant, senior supervisor, care co-ordinators, supervisors and care staff. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider.

We reviewed a range of records. This included twenty-three people’s care records and multiple medicines records. We looked at ten staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies, procedures and audits were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. This included reviewing recent medicines audits. We received electronic feedback from two people receiving care.

Updated 13 February 2020

About the service

Universal Care Services Hinckley is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to 251 younger adults and older people with dementia, physical disabilities, mental health needs, sensory impairments and learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There was no registered manager in post. The provider had appointed an acting manager that had applied to be registered with the CQC. They supported the provider to monitor the quality of the service and ensure the regulatory requirements were met. Quality assurance systems and processes identified where improvements were needed and action was taken to address these. However, we found further improvements were required to improve call times, prevent missed calls, respond to calls to the office and the recording of medicines.

People told us they received their medicines as prescribed. However, staff did not always record medicines administration on the correct documentation. The service had identified this and acted to address it. However, further improvements were required including the implementation of an electronic Medicines Administration Record (MAR) whereby office staff would be alerted if medicines were not administered.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff offered people choice’s when delivering their care.

Staff knew how to recognise, and report suspected abuse. They had been safely recruited and had access to the training they needed to meet people’s individual care needs. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s moving and handling needs. Staff had access to personal protective equipment to minimise and control the spread of infection. Staff felt well supported by the management team.

People were supported to eat and drink enough by staff that knew their preferences and wishes, they ensured people had snacks and drinks available before they left their home. Staff contacted health professionals as needed and had received specific training to meet people’s individual needs.

People were supported by staff that were kind and caring. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and involved them in decisions about their care. Staff knew people’s hobbies, interests, preferences and wishes.

There had been improvements in the management of complaints. These were managed in line with the providers complaints policy. Some people found it difficult to contact the office to discuss their day to day care needs or raise concerns.

Staff knew how to provide person centred care, and the information included in people’s care plans about their likes, dislikes, hobbies and interests assisted with this. Staff enjoyed spending time with people.

The service understood their requirements in relation to duty of candour and were open and honest with us during our inspection. They worked with partner agencies such as commissioners and healthcare professionals to meet the needs of the people receiving care from the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (Published 29 October 2018) and there were breaches of regulation. Since this rating was awarded the service has moved premises and changed its name from Universal Care Services Nuneaton to Universal Care Services Hinckley.

The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.