Churchill Health Care (Luton)

Updated 2 July 2021

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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors 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.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. This means that the provider is legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 24 May 2021 and ended on 02 June 2021. We visited the office location on 25 May 2021.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 11 people who used the service and 14 relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 14 members of staff including the provider, manager, quality and compliance officer, field care supervisor and care staff.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.

Updated 2 July 2021

About the service

Churchill Healthcare (Luton) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to older and younger adults who may be living with dementia, a physical disability or a learning disability living in their own houses or flats. The service was supporting 213 people at the time of this inspection.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risks to people were assessed according to their support needs, however some risk assessments needed to be more detailed. When incidents and accidents happened, there were sometimes missed opportunities to learn lessons and put improvements in place. Staff knowledge around safeguarding and reporting concerns to external authorities needed improving. Audits were not always effective at identifying where improvements could be made. It was not clear when care plans were reviewed and how people and their relatives were involved in these.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice. Staff training and knowledge around the MCA needed improving and there were also some improvements that could be made regarding the recording of consent in people’s care plans. We have made a recommendation about the service updating its practice around the MCA in line with best practice.

People were happy with the care and support they received at the service. One person told us, ‘‘[Staff] look after me well. They are all very nice kind and caring.’’

There were enough staff to keep people safe and ensure that people received the support they needed. Staff received training, supervision and observation to ensure that they were performing their job roles well. People were supported safely with their medicines and with regards to infection control. People received support with nutrition and hydration according to their needs and were supported to see health professionals if this was needed.

People received kind and compassionate care from a staff team who knew them well. Staff promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence and gave people everyday choices about their support. People received personalised care based on their preferences, likes and dislikes and where end of life care was required this was provided with dignity and respect.

The provider and manager were committed to improving the quality of the service and were acting in areas where improvements were needed. There was a positive culture at the service and people, relatives and the staff team praised the support that they received from the manager and the provider. Complaints were recorded and responded to promptly. There were good working relationships with external professionals and authorities.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 20/06/2019 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.