10 August 2017
During a routine inspection
We last inspected the service on 26 July and 2 August 2016. We found breaches of Regulations in respect of how the service was ensuring they were staffed safely and meeting people’s needs in a personalised manner. The service was judged to be Requires Improvement overall. They were also Requires Improvement in respect of the whether the service was safe, effective, responsive and well-led. Whether the service was caring was judged to be Good. The registered manager sent us an action plan on how and when they were going to put this right. They told us this would be put right by December 2016. We checked on this inspection and found the issues raised in 2016 had been addressed.
Scope Inclusion South West (referred to as Scope South West) provides care to people in their own homes. Care can be provided to all ages from children to older people. At the time of the inspection eight people were receiving personal care and were aged between four and 64 years. People’s needs could include physical disabilities, sensory impairment, learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder.
A registered manager was employed to manage the service locally. 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.
Systems were not operated effectively to ensure there were enough staff to meet the requirements of people’s care plans at all times. The provider had recruited more staff since the last inspection and the percentage of missed shifts had fallen. However, the contingency plan was not always working to make sure staffing needs were met where there was advance or short term notice. The provider’s quality auditing had not ensured staffing was identified as an on-going need. Having identified the service was not meeting 100 per cent of staffing, this had been challenged further.
Staff were recruited safely and trained to meet people’s individual needs. Wherever possible people were only cared for by staff known to them and trained to meet their needs. Relatives told us they felt staff were caring, considerate and able to meet their loved ones needs in a caring way.
People’s care was planned in a personalised way and people’s relative and relevant professionals were involved in planning and meeting their needs. People had the necessary risk assessment in place to keep them safe. People’s health needs were identified and acted on. Staff understood how important consent was and the requirements to ensure they were acting in people’s best interests (adults) or parental consent (children) where this was required. People were supported to stay active in their community and access local facilities.
Relatives felt their loved one was safe with staff. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and children and understood how to raise a concern. Staff felt the registered manager and other senior staff would act to keep people safe. The provider had a whistle blowing policy which staff knew about and would use if their concerns were not listened to.
People’s needs were met where staff were responsible for people’s medicine and ensuring people had enough to eat and drink. Clear records were kept and issues followed up on.
Staff liked working for the service and told us the registered manager and other senior staff were approachable and supportive. Relatives were involved in planning the care of their loved one and asked their view of the running of the service. Complaints were investigated and ensured they were fully concluded to the complainant’s satisfaction.