Archived: Interserve Healthcare - Harrogate

Updated 29 October 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We inspected the service on 14 April 2015. The visit was announced. The provider was given two days’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the location offices to see us. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people who received a service from the agency.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector from the Care Quality Commission and one expert by experience who supported the inspection by carrying out some telephone interviews to seek people’s views and experiences. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service and whose expertise was in adult health and social care.

Prior to our visit we looked at a range of different information which included information we hold about the service. We also looked at the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at notifications we had received for this service and reviewed all the intelligence CQC had received. We reviewed all of this information to help us make a judgement about this service.

During the inspection visit we reviewed five people’s care records and four staff recruitment and training files. We reviewed records required for the management of the service such as audits, minutes from meetings, statement of purpose, satisfaction surveys and the complaints procedure. We spoke with the manager during our visit to the agencies office. We also spoke with four members of staff by telephone. We telephoned a total of thirteen people who received a service from the agency. We spoke directly with three people who received a service from the agency. We also spoke with ten relatives of people who received a service.

We received information from Healthwatch. They are an independent body who hold key information about the local views and experiences of people receiving care. CQC has a statutory duty to work with Healthwatch to take account of their views and to consider any concerns that may have been raised with them about this service. We also consulted the Local Authority to see if they had any concerns about the service, and none were raised.

Updated 29 October 2015

We undertook this announced inspection on the 14 April 2015. At the previous inspection, which took place on 20 December 2013 the service met with all of the regulations we assessed.

Interserve Healthcare - Harrogate is owned by Advantage Healthcare Nursing and Care Limited. The office is close to the town centre of Harrogate. The agency is registered to provide personal care and nursing care. They employ care workers and nurses and supports people and their families who wish to live independently and/or in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 13 people were supported by Interserve Healthcare - Harrogate. The service did not have a manager currently registered with the Care Quality Commission. The service had employed a manager who had recently commenced working at the service three months prior to our inspection. The manager informed us that they had made an application to register with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

People we spoke with said they felt safe with staff from the agency. However, people also told us they were not satisfied with the levels of staff provided from the agency with families sometimes being told they had to manage as there were gaps in the rota. We have recommended that the manager makes sure that appropriate levels of staff are provided to meet peoples needs.

Staff were recruited safely and they were trained appropriately to be able to support people.

The service had safeguarding vulnerable adult’s policies and procedures which were understood by staff. Staff received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and all those spoken with confirmed that they would tell someone should any aspect of poor care be observed.

Staff identified and understood individual risks to people and worked with them to minimise these risks whilst also supporting them to remain as independent as possible.

People were positive about the staff who supported them. People using the service described being treated by staff from the agency with politeness and respect.

People told us they were able to make choices. Their likes, dislikes and personal preferences were recorded within their care records and were known and understood by staff.

Several people made comments to us about the agency not being very responsive. Examples people gave us were having to phone the office and ‘chase the agency’ to see if cover was arranged for gaps in the rota. They also said that the office/manager did not respond to phone calls very quickly or return calls and people felt there was little personal contact with managers and agency office staff.

Training was provided for all staff and staff said this supported them in their roles. They received appropriate induction, training, supervision and support.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the MCA (Mental Capacity Act 2005) legislation which is in place for people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. The legislation is designed to ensure that any decisions are made in people’s best interests.

The agency did not have an effective quality assurance system in place which ensured that the agency could satisfy itself that it provided care to people in their own homes in a safe and effective way. We have recommended that the agency improves the quality assurance system.

The agency had received complaints and we saw that they had dealt with them appropriately. However people told us that they had not had a copy of the agencies complaints procedure, although most people told us they would not hesitate in contacting the agency if they had a complaint. We have recommended that the manager makes sure that people who use the service know how to complain.