Rose of Sharon Care Services

Updated 5 March 2019

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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The Inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

Service and service type:

Rose of Sharon care services are a Domiciliary Care Agency that provides personal care to people living in their own homes.

Notice of inspection:

We gave the service two days’ notice of the inspection site visit as this is a small agency and the registered manager and staff may not have been available for the inspection.

What we did:

The inspection activity started on 06 February 2019 when we visited the location and ended on 08 February 2019. We visited the location to see the registered manager and staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

We reviewed information we had received about the service since they were registered with us. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as allegations of abuse and we sought feedback from the local authority and other professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We also made phone calls to three people who used the service and two relatives of people that used the service on 8 February 2019 to gather their views on the service being delivered. We also spoke with the provider (who was also the registered manager), service co-ordinator, an administrator and three care staff. We used this information to form part of our judgement.

We looked at three people’s care records to see how their care was planned and delivered. Other records looked at included three recruitment files to check suitable staff members were recruited and received appropriate training. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service along with a selection of the provider’s policies and procedures, to ensure people received a good quality service. Details are in the ‘Key Questions’ below.

Updated 5 March 2019

About the service:

Rose of Sharon Care Services is a Domiciliary Care Agency that is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. People who used the service had a range of support needs related to old age, dementia and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection the service supported 10 people with personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People confirmed what the provider told us at the time of our inspection, that there had been difficulties maintaining the service to a good standard in late 2018 due to staffing difficulties. The provider had recognised action was needed and had reduced the size of the service provided so that people received a more timely and better standard of care. The provider does need to embed these improvements to ensure that there is no repeat of the difficulties encountered previously, and the standard of care is maintained.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with care staff and staff could tell us how they should keep people safe and minimise identified risks to their safety. People and care staff told us due to recent changes the timeliness of staff in attending people’s care calls and stopping for the duration of the call had improved since the previous year.

People were supported by care staff that were caring, showed compassion and expressed interest in providing good care for the people they visited. People told us they received good care and support that was based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people, their needs and preferences and used this to develop a good relationship with the people they visited.

People were supported by care staff who had a range of skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood, felt confident and well supported in their role, although there was scope to expand their knowledge in respect of some people’s health conditions. People's health was supported as staff worked with other health care providers to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff understood that they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People's care plans reflected their needs and preferences and the staff could explain recent changes to people’s care. Where there was changes in people's needs we saw these were reflected in their care plans and staff were aware of these.

People knew how to complain and that any concerns would be listened and responded to by the provider. The registered manager saw complaints as useful feedback from which to develop and improve the service and they had took the appropriate action to make these improvements when needed.

People, relatives and staff gave us a positive picture as to the quality of care people received, and said they could share their views with the provider.

Quality monitoring systems included audits, spot checks on staff practice and regular checks on people’s satisfaction with the service they received, by surveys, phone calls or visits from the provider. The provider has systems in place to ensure they kept up to date with developments in the sector and changes in the law.

People and relatives told us the registered manager and staff were approachable, organised, listened and responded to them and acted on feedback when they shared this with them.

Rating at last inspection: The rating for the service at our last inspection was ‘requires improvement’ (Published on 09 June 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was due based on our scheduling targets.

Enforcement:

No enforcement action was required.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.