Archived: Royal Mencap Society - Rotherham Domiciliary Care Agency

Updated 5 October 2017

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 registered provider was 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.

The inspection included a visit to the agency’s office which took place on 15 August 2017. The registered provider was given short notice of the visit in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The inspection team included an adult social care inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. An inspection manager was also present at the inspection. Their role was to observe how the inspector conducted the inspection, this is part of the way CQC monitors inspector's performance.

To help us to plan and identify areas to focus on in the inspection we considered all the information we held about the service, including notifications submitted to us by the registered provider, and information gained from people using the service and their relatives who had contacted CQC to share feedback about the service. Before the inspection, the registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, and improvements they plan to make.

We contacted one of the organisations who commissioned the service to seek their views about the service provided, met one person who used the service at the office and talked to seven people using the service by telephone. We spoke with five members of the management team and two support staff.

During the inspection site visit we looked at documentation including care records, risk assessments, personnel and training files and other records relating to the management of the service, such as quality audits and safeguarding investigation reports.

Updated 5 October 2017

The inspection took place on 15 August 2017, with the registered provider being given short notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The service was last inspected in July 2014. At that time, the service was rated ‘Good’ across each of the five key questions.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Royal Mencap Society - Rotherham Domiciliary Care Agency’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Royal Mencap Society - Rotherham Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care to people living in their own homes and to people living in supported living environments in the Rotherham area. At the time of the inspection 96 people were receiving care and support from the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service told us that staff had a caring approach, and praised the way staff upheld their dignity and treated them with respect. There was a comprehensive training programme in place, which meant that staff were equipped with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

There was an effective complaints system in place, and where complaints had been received the registered provider dealt with them appropriately, making alterations to the service as required.

The recruitment system was robust, meaning that only staff with the right skills and aptitude were employed by the registered provider. Staff performance was managed via a system of staff supervisions and appraisals.

The registered provider complied with the Mental Capacity Act, ensuring that people gave informed consent to their care or that appropriate procedures were followed where people lacked the mental capacity to give consent.

Where people were at risk of harm, there were risk assessments in place, which considered the specific risks that people were vulnerable to.

Staff told us they felt supported by managers, although many said that they did not feel their views were listened to.

There was a very comprehensive and effective audit and quality monitoring system in place.