Background to this inspection
Updated
22 April 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 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.
This inspection took place on 17 and 21 February 2017 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because the service is provided in the community and we needed to be sure that they would be in.
The inspection team was made up on one adult social care inspector and one expert by experience who made telephone calls to people and their relatives. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally required to let us know about. The provider also completed a 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 what improvements they plan to make.
We also contacted the local authority commissioning team and the safeguarding adult’s team.
During the inspection we spoke with nine relatives and a solicitor who had acted on behalf of one of the people supported by the service. We were unable to speak to any people using the service as relatives told us they were all living with a dementia and would be unable to speak with us about their care.
We also spoke with the registered manager, one senior support worker, two support workers, the service manager and the care services manager.
We reviewed five people’s care records and three staff files including recruitment, supervision and training information. We reviewed three medicine records, as well as records relating to the management of the service.
Updated
22 April 2017
This inspection took place on 17 and 21 February 2017 and was announced. This is the first inspection of Community Pastimes Hartlepool.
Community Pastimes Hartlepool is registered as a domiciliary care service to provide personal care for older people and younger adults. The aim of the service to enable people to access and enjoy hobbies, interests and recreational activities in the community.
At the time of the inspection there were 40 people receiving the regulated activity of personal care. The registered manager said of the regulated activity, “It’s as and when required. It isn’t our primary function, we provide continence care as needed and we administer meds (medicines).”
A registered manager was registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of the inspection.
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.
During the inspection we found some care records did not contain sufficient detail, one care record contained contradictions and two care records had not been updated in response following the outcome of referrals to other services such as the falls team.
The concerns we noted during the inspection had not been identified through the provider’s own quality assurance systems.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Risk assessments were completed and included measures to control and minimise the risk. A operational risk assessment and business continuity plan was in place to minimise and manage any risks to the operation of the business.
Staff understood safeguarding and explained how vigilant they were to risks due to people’s level of vulnerability whilst in the community.
Medicines were managed safely. Accidents and incidents were recorded and discussed within health and safety meetings for any lessons learnt.
People were supported by a small, consistent staff team who knew them and their relatives well. Staff were proactive in communicating with relatives, and in contacting external healthcare professionals if they felt people were unwell or needed additional support.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
Relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe when being supported by staff. They felt staff treated people with respect and dignity. Staff spoke about people in a compassionate, warm and respectful manner.
A complaints policy and procedure was in place. Relatives said they knew how to complain but had not had reason to do so.
Safe recruitment practices were followed, and new staff completed a comprehensive induction before supporting people on a one to one basis.
Staff told us the training they received was comprehensive and we saw a training matrix which showed staff training was up to date. Supervision and appraisal meetings were planned for the whole year and staff said they felt well supported.