11 September 2014
During a routine inspection
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
Care and treatment was planned in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Risk assessments had been carried out for each person and plans were put in place to minimise risks.
However, care was not always delivered in a way which ensured people's safety. For example, people using the service and their relatives told us when two care staff were required to deliver care they did not always arrive at the same time. Care could not then be delivered in line with the care plan. People also told us there were occasions when care workers did not arrive at all.
Is the service effective?
Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. The provider acted in accordance with legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent.
People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard. Staff were appropriately supervised. The provider encouraged staff to pursue additional qualifications and worked to ensure that their care skills were up to date through access to a range of suitable training courses.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with five people who were using the service and nine relatives of people using the service. They were mostly satisfied with the care being provided. One person using the service said, "They are super. We get on very well." Another person told us, "They look after me very well." One relative said, "They listen to you. If you are not happy with a carer, then you can ask for a different one and they try to sort it out straight away."
However, some people were not happy with the provision of care. One of the relatives we spoke with told us, "The staff are very caring, but sometimes they don't come when they should. My [relative] needs two carers to provide care safely. They don't turn up at the same time and I have been asked to fill in instead."
Is the service responsive?
The provider worked alongside other health and social care professionals, such as district nurses or occupational therapists, in order to protect the health, welfare and safety of people who used the service. They sought additional advice from other health and care professionals in order to improve the quality of the care being provided.
We examined how the service responded to complaints. The service responded to concerns promptly and carried out investigations of any complaints.
Is the service well led?
The provider had systems to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This included obtaining feedback from people using the service, their relatives, and members of staff. The service used this information to improve the quality of the service.
The provider had a system in place for recording incidents. However, no incidents had been recorded since the last inspection. We found evidence of some incidents which had resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to the people using the service. These might have required an investigation, but none had occurred. This meant that the provider did not protect people against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care by means of making changes to the care as a result of an analysis of these incidents.