Surecare Doncaster Ltd

Updated 20 July 2018

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 9 and 10 July 2018. We gave the service two days' notice of the inspection because we wanted to visit people in their homes and we needed support from the registered manager to arrange this. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 112 people.

On the 9 July 2018 we visited five people in their homes to ask their opinions about the care they received and look at their care records. Whilst out on visits we were accompanied by a field care supervisor and met with four relatives. On 9 July 2018 we also spoke over the telephone with six people who used the service and three relatives.

On the 10 July 2018 we visited the office location to see the registered manager, director and office staff and reviewed care records and policies and procedures relating to the service. We also met with five care workers.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector, one assistant 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. The experts by experience had experience of supporting and caring for young and older people.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is 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.

Prior to the inspection visit we gathered information from many sources. We looked at the information received about the service from notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the registered manager. We also spoke with the local authority commissioners, contracts officers and safeguarding and Healthwatch (Doncaster). Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

Updated 20 July 2018

We undertook an announced inspection of Surecare Doncaster on 9 and 10 July 2018. We gave the registered manager short notice that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to be sure the registered manager was available.

Surecare Doncaster is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to children, younger and older adults in the Doncaster area.

The last inspection of Surecare Doncaster was on 18 July 2017. At this inspection the service was rated requires improvement. The registered manager sent us an action plan detailing the action they had taken to make sure they were meeting all regulations. At our inspection on 9 and 10 July 2018 we found the service had improved and it is now rated Good.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Everyone spoken with told us they felt safe in the care of the staff at Surecare Doncaster. Based on feedback from people who used the service, relative and staff as well as our observations during this inspection, we identified there were adequate numbers of staff to safely meet people's needs.

Recruitment was appropriately managed as relevant background checks had been completed prior to employment, to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and reviewed. Medication procedures were in place including protocols for the use of 'as and when required' (PRN) medicines. Staff had received training in medicines management and medicines were audited in line with the registered provider's procedures.

Where appropriate people were being supported to manage their money, for example, whilst out on activities. We found the financial record for one person had been incorrectly recorded. The registered manager and director dealt with this inaccuracy during and after the inspection so that they could be fully confident the person was not at risk of financial abuse.

Staff completed an induction and received ongoing support through a programme of supervision, appraisal and training.

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 supported this practice.

Staff were pro-active in ensuring people were supported to access healthcare services and shared recent examples of working together with other healthcare professionals to deliver positive outcomes for people.

Staff were caring and compassionate and engaged people in friendly interaction, respecting their preferences and communication style. Relatives told us staff respected people's privacy and dignity and staff could describe how they managed this. People's cultural and religious needs were met by staff at this service.

People said they had their own regular care workers who knew them well and cared for them as agreed in their care plans. Each person's care plan was updated regularly and changes made where necessary.

People and their relatives felt able to report any concerns and said they were confident these would be dealt with.

The service asked people for their views and opinions about the service they had experienced via annual surveys. We saw evidence actions were put in place in response to people’s feedback.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and to continually review such things as safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and near misses. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.