Background to this inspection
Updated
26 April 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 was completed by an adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission (CQC). An expert by experience also provided support by making telephone calls to obtain feedback on people’s experiences of using this service. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Service and service type:
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. Most people who used the service were older adults, but younger people, people living with a physical disability, sensory impairment, or those living with a support need related to their mental health could also be supported by the service.
The service had a manager registered with the CQC. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.’
Notice of inspection:
This was an announced inspection, which meant we gave the service 24 hours’ notice of our visit. This was because the service supports people living in the community and we wanted to be certain there would be someone available to facilitate our inspection.
What we did:
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about and we sought feedback from the local authority who work with the service. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). 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. We used all this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, regional manager, care coordinator and four carers. We also had an opportunity to speak with the head of commissioning and a commissioning officer from the local authority.
We attempted to contact 20 people who used the service by telephone. 12 people responded to our calls and provided feedback about their experiences of using this service.
We looked in detail at six support plans and associated documentation. We looked at two staff files, as well as records relating to the oversight and governance of the service, policies and procedures, recruitment, training and quality monitoring.
Updated
26 April 2019
About the service: This inspection took place on 12 and 13 March 2019. Careline Homecare (Tameside) is a domiciliary care agency and is part of the City and County Healthcare Group. Personal care is provided to people in their own homes in the community. At the time of this inspection, 296 people used the service for personal care, including people living at Hurst Meadow extra care housing scheme.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ At our last inspection of this service we identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 with regards to staffing, responding to complaints and good governance. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of Regulations.
¿The service had appropriate systems and procedures in place which sought to protect people who used the service from abuse. Staff demonstrated a working knowledge of local safeguarding procedures and how to raise a concern.
¿ We saw missed and late visits were analysed and detailed the circumstance why the missed or late visit had occurred. The management team used this information to reduce the likihood of it happening again.
¿ Recruitment and selection of staff was robust with safe recruitment practices in place. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). This helped to ensure potential
employees were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
¿ Where support with medicines was part of an assessed care need, these were ordered, stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records.
¿ Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and included details of preventive strategies used by the service to reduce the likelihood of such events occurring in the future.
¿ The staff induction programme was robust and included mandatory training and opportunities for shadowing of more experienced staff.
¿ Services were delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff sought consent prior to providing care and offered people choices to encourage people to make their own decisions.
¿ People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and promoted their independence
¿ People engaged with an initial assessment and were involved in the planning of care. Regular reviews were conducted with people, their relatives and where appropriate, other professionals.
¿ People received appropriate information, including details about the complaints procedure. People told us they were confident that if they were required to make a complaint, the management would respond and resolve their issue promptly.
¿ We found there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to people, which ensured good governance.
¿ The service was well managed. The culture and ethos was one of openness and transparency.
Rating at last inspection: ‘Requires Improvement’ (Report published 06 August 2018).
Why we inspected: This inspection was brought forward due to information of concern that had been received by CQC in the weeks leading up to this inspection. These issues are addressed in the well-led section of the full report. At this inspection, we found sufficient evidence to support the service had improved its overall rating to ‘Good.’
Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our inspection schedule for those services rated good.