- Homecare service
Collingswood House
Report from 30 September 2024 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 30 September to 21 October 2024. The Commission carried out this assessment to cover all the remaining quality statements, in order that all 5 key questions could be rated, and therefore an overall rating could be given to the service for the first time. We assessed 25 quality statements from all 5 key questions. This assessment showed areas of good practice, as well as areas that needed to improve. Our overall rating for the service is Requires Improvement. Collingswood House is a homecare agency, providing care and support to older people in their own homes. Most people were assessed as requiring personal care for physical needs, and some people had significant dementia care needs. The service has grown in the past few years, and was supporting 376 people, with 250 care staff. The service supported people across all areas of Plymouth. We visited the service’s office in the Ford Park area of central Plymouth on 2 and 16 October 2024. We found failures in 3 regulations in relation to consent, safeguarding and good governance. However, we also found that the service was caring, with staff providing individualised and supportive care to people. That most people’s individual needs were met, by staff who were trained and skilled to deliver the care people needed. The service had a good administrative base and management capacity. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives said they felt safe with care staff and that staff knew people well. People’s individual risks generally were identified. However, we found the service was not working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and appropriate legal authorisations had not been requested for people who did not have the mental capacity to consent to being locked in their own home. We were told these restrictions were safe. However, we required the service to notify Plymouth City Council of all the people who appeared to need assessment under the MCA, to find out if they were safe, and to apply for legal authorisation under the MCA as necessary. Therefore, some people’s human rights were not being protected by the service. The service was delivering all the visits they had been commissioned to provide and in general people were happy with the service. However, some people told us staff sometimes left visits early or were late due to the restrictions of staff travel time. People and their relatives said staff were competent and skilled to carry out their jobs. People said staff were kind, compassionate and caring and treated people with dignity and respect when helping them with daily living tasks. People were generally supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment, and wellbeing. Most people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality and removed barriers or delays. Some people and staff expressed some dissatisfaction with the office and management of the service.