Archived: Allied Healthcare High Wycombe

Updated 4 December 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 was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 14 and 19 November 2018. The inspection was announced and carried out by one 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 expert who supported this inspection had expertise in physical and sensory disabilities and being a family carer. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available in the office to assist with the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information, we held about the service which included notifications they had sent us. Notifications are sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to inform us of events relating to the service which they must inform us of by law. We also looked at previous inspection reports and reviewed 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 contacted the local safeguarding authority and three community health and social care professionals for feedback. We received positive feedback from one professional and the safeguarding authority raised no concerns.

During the inspection we spoke with nine people who used the service and six relatives. With their permission we also visited two people in their homes and spoke with them and one of their relatives. We interviewed eight members of staff including the registered manager, the office manager, compliance co-ordinator and five care staff.

We looked at records relating to the management of the service. We reviewed seven people’s care plans including medicine records and other associated records. We inspected six staff files including recruitment records and reviewed records of accidents, incidents and complaints. We looked at a selection of handover and communication documentation, minutes of meetings, service audits and health and safety records.

Updated 4 December 2018

Allied Healthcare High Wycombe is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older people and younger adults. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do receive the regulated activity ‘personal care’, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care and support to 69 people.

The service had a registered manager as required. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. The registered manager and office manager were present and assisted us during the inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People told us they felt safe with the care staff. Relatives felt their family members received support that was safe. Staff were trained and knowledgeable in how to safeguard people and understood their responsibilities. People were supported safely with their medicines and received them at the required times. Risks to people and their well-being were assessed and measures put in place to minimise them without restricting people’s freedom. A robust recruitment procedure was followed to ensure as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. Appropriate personal protective equipment was supplied and used to help control the spread of infection.

People continued to receive effective support from staff who were trained and had the necessary skills to fulfil their role. Staff were well supported through regular supervision meetings and appraisals of their work. People were supported with maintaining their diet and hydration. People’s healthcare needs were monitored; staff had been trained to identify early warning signs of deterioration and sought advice promptly from healthcare professionals when necessary. 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.

The service remained caring. People and their relatives told us staff were kind and patient. It was evident staff had formed trusting relationships with them. People told us they looked forward to their visits. Staff understood how to protect people’s privacy and relatives told us staff treated people with respect. People and when appropriate relatives were fully involved in making decisions about their care. Staff encouraged people to maintain as much independence as possible.

The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs and took account of their personal preferences in relation to culture, beliefs and protected characteristics. Staff knew people very well and paid attention to finding out about their preferred routines. Individual care plans were person-centred and considered the diverse needs of each person. The service provided flexible support which was appreciated by people and their relatives. Complaints were taken seriously and managed in accordance with the provider’s policy; people were aware of how to raise concerns and who to speak to. Although the managers were not fully aware of the accessible information standard we saw they were meeting its requirements.

The service was well-led, people benefitted from a stable and longstanding management and staff team. The management team provided strong leadership and staff felt supported in their roles. Records were relevant, complete and reviewed regularly to reflect current information. There was an open, empowering, person centred culture in the service and the values of the service were embedded in the way the service was led. Feedback was sought and used to monitor the quality of the service. Audits were conducted and used to make improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.