Archived: Burney House, Office K

This service is a domiciliary care agency and is based in the London Borough of Havering. Burney House, Office K provides 24-hour live-in care and support to younger adults and older people living in their own homes.

At the time of the inspection, the service was supporting 17 people.

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

A medicine support plan was in place for each person, which included information on how to support them with medicines. However, we found accurate records of medicine administration had not been kept. Audits had not identified the shortfalls we found with medicine records. We made a recommendation in this area.

Robust quality monitoring systems were not in place. Feedback through telephone monitoring was not being recorded to ensure continuous improvements were being made to improve care.

Risk assessments had been carried out to ensure people received safe care. Pre-employment checks such as references had been sought to ensure staff were suitable to support people. Systems were in place to monitor staff time-keeping and prevent infections.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The previous rating for this service was Good (published 6 March 2019).

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to staff approach and communication. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

The overall rating for the service has remained the same. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Please see the well-led section of this report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘Burney House, Office K on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Burney House, Office K provides 24-hour live-in care and support to younger adults and older people living in their own homes. At the time of our visit, they were providing personal care to 17 people and all of them had live-in staff.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿People and their relatives told us they were happy with the service and staff working with them or their loved ones.

¿People felt safe with the staff who provided with care and support in their own homes. Staff understood signs of potential abuse and could explain what action they would take if they had any concerns.

¿Risk assessments had been completed to ensure people were safe. There were systems in place to ensure any accidents or incidents were recorded and action taken to investigate these to help prevent reoccurrence.

¿Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. They had received training appropriate to their role, so people could be confident they were cared for safely. They understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and acted in people’s best interest.

¿Staff felt supported and received regular supervision and an annual appraisal. They had also received a structured induction when they started working for the service.

¿There were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff knew people well and understood their needs. They respected people's privacy and dignity.

¿People's changing needs were monitored to make sure their health needs were responded to promptly.

¿People and their representatives told us staff were caring. They knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about the support they received.

¿The registered manager had regular contact with people and their representatives and welcomed suggestions on how they could develop the service and make improvements.

¿People’s needs had been assessed before they started using the service. Care plans were detailed and reflected each person’s needs and they were regularly reviewed.

¿People were supported to receive the healthcare that they needed. Staff encouraged people to eat and drink sufficient amounts of nutritionally well-balanced food and drink that met their needs.

¿The registered manager operated an open-door policy. Staff, relatives and people spoke positively about them and said they were happy with the way the service was run. The registered manager understood what their roles and responsibilities were.

¿There were systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service to continually improve it. This included satisfaction surveys and regular audits.

¿The registered manager maintained good links with all the local authorities they worked with. This helped to ensure people received good quality care and support.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published 28 September 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will monitor all intelligence received about the service to inform the assessment of the risk profile of the service and to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

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

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

Safehands Live In Care Ltd provides 24 hour live-in care and support to younger adults and older people living in their own homes. At the time of our visit, they were providing personal care to 13 people and all of them had a live-in staff. The service had around 26 staff in their employment.

People and their relatives were happy with the service. They felt the service was managed well.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and knew how to identify and raise safeguarding concerns to keep people safe. They knew what action to take if they were concerned that abuse or neglect was taking place. Risks associated with people's care and support had been assessed.

People received support from trained staff who were skilled and knowledgeable in meeting their needs. Staff had regular contact with the registered manager to discuss any issues or concerns they might have relating to people's care and support.

Staff had received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager and staff understood when and how to support people’s best interest if they lacked capacity to make certain decisions about their care.

People were supported to take their medicines the way they preferred. There was a policy and procedure about safe administration of medicines. Staff had been trained to administer medicines safely.

The service employed enough staff to meet the needs of the people using the service. New staff underwent an induction programme, which included relevant training courses and shadowing experienced staff, until they were competent to work on their own.

The recruitment selection system ensured that staff were checked and suitable to work with people.

People were supported with their meals to ensure they received food and drinks they liked to help keep them as healthy as possible.

People’s needs had been assessed before they started using the service. People were involved in developing their care plans which were individualised and identified their needs and preferences.

The service had a complaints policy. People and their relatives told us they were happy with the service they received and were comfortable to raise any concerns with staff if something was wrong.

People and their relatives felt staff were caring and supported them to maintain good health. Staff were kind in their approach and knew people well.

The provider had a system in place to enable people to share their views about the service provided. There were also systems to audit and identify what improvements needed to be made.