Agincare UK Surrey

Updated 12 January 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 18 December 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 72 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure that staff would be available to assist us during the inspection. We had also asked the manager to arrange home visits for us, so we could speak with people in their own homes. The inspection was carried out by four inspectors. Two inspectors attended the office, one carried out home visits and the fourth undertook telephone interviews with people.

Prior to this inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including data about safeguarding and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

We had not asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This was because we were following up on our last inspection to check improvements had been made.

During our inspection we had discussions with the manager, the provider’s operations director, three members of staff, eight people who used the service and one relative. We looked at the care records for nine people. We looked at five staff recruitment files, supervision records and training records. We looked at audits undertaken by the provider and a selection of policies and procedures.

Updated 12 January 2018

Agincare UK Surrey is a domiciliary care agency which is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 85 people.

This inspection took place on the 18 December 2017 and was announced. We gave 72 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that staff would be available in the office. This was also to allow the manager time to arrange some home visits for us as part of this inspection.

There was no registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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. There was a manager in post who started in February 2017 was in the process of registering with CQC. The manager assisted us with our inspection.

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service in January 2017 when we rated the service as Inadequate overall. We took some enforcement action against the provider at that time as we found that the service was not being managed adequately. Following that we carried out a focused inspection in June 2017 to look at Safe and Well-Led to check the registered provider had taken action in response to the concerns we had identified in January 2017. We found they had and the service had improved, however we stated at the time that we would wish to see this improvement embedded before we could change the rating we had awarded. This comprehensive inspection was conducted to look at the service as a whole and to see if all five areas that we inspect on had sustained those improvements. We identified no concerns at this inspection.

People told us they were cared for by staff who were kind and caring. And people were supported by staff to remain as independent as they were able. They said staff arrived on time and carried out care for them in the way they wished it. People said they had not had a missed call and if staff were going to be late they were informed. Risks to people were identified and actions taken to help people stay safe. In the event of an accident the agency followed this up.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with staff from Agincare. Staff had a clear understanding of the different types of abuse and the procedures to be followed if they had witnessed or suspected abuse had taken place. The registered provider had followed safe recruitment processes to ensure they only employed suitable staff. Staff were aware of their duties in relation to infection control when working in people’s homes.

If an emergency occurred at the office or there were adverse weather conditions, people’s care would not be interrupted as there were contingency procedures in place. There was an on-call system for assistance outside of normal working hours.

Staff had received training and supervisions that helped them to perform their duties. They also received spot checks from senior staff whilst they were working with people. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and we found that people’s consent was sought before the agency provided care to them.

There were enough staff to ensure that people’s assessed needs could be met and all visits could be undertaken in a timely manner. Management of medicines was undertaken in a safe way and recording of such was completed to show people had received the medicines they required. Regular auditing of medicines charts took place to help ensure staff consistently followed best practice.

Care plans included background histories for people and information about how people preferred their care to be provided. Guidance for staff was detailed and there was evidence people were involved in their care planning.

People’s nutritional needs were met by staff who would cook meals for those who required this type of support. Staff sought healthcare professional advice and input when needed and escorted people to important appointments in relation to their health.

Quality assurance audits were carried out to help ensure the quality of the care the agency provided met the needs of people. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and the manager kept people informed of events and news relating to the agency via a newsletter. There was a complaints procedure in place. Although there had been no formal complaints, we found the manager had responded to any feedback or comments they had received. The manager was knowledgeable about the service and was able to assist us with the inspection. It was evidence they had a commitment to improve the service the agency provided to people.