Background to this inspection
Updated
31 May 2019
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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
There was one inspector.
Service and service type:
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and disabled adults.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are 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 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small, and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
Inspection site visit activity started on 16 April 2019 and ended on 18 April. We visited the office location on both the 16 April and 18 April 2019. We spent more than one day due to the provider changing their location and the inspection occurring very soon after their location change. We went to see the manager and other staff there, and to review care records and policies and procedures.
What we did:
before inspection:
¿ We looked at information we held regarding the provider and information they had sent us.
during and after the inspection:
¿ We looked at three people’s care records
¿ Safeguarding records, and policies and procedures
¿ Audits and quality assurance reports
¿ We spoke with five members of staff including two care staff, the registered manager and two directors
¿ We spoke to two people who used the service and two relatives.
Updated
31 May 2019
About the service:
Grossdale Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency that was providing personal care to five people at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service did not always record the administration of medicines properly. Medicine risk assessments lacked information about the risks associated with specific medicines people were taking. The provider did not always record when things went wrong and therefore did not gain any learning when they did. There were systems and processes in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. People were risk assessed to reduce the probability of harm coming to them. There were enough staff to provide care. Staff received robust recruitment checks. People were protected from infection through infection prevention measures.
People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service. Staff received inductions and training in their roles. Staff also received supervisions. People were supported to eat and drink. Staff worked with other agencies, including healthcare professionals, to the benefit of people’s care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice.
People told us they were treated well by kind and caring staff. The service was inclusive and promoted people’s human rights. People told us staff listened to them and they had input into their care and treatment. People told us their privacy and dignity were respected and their independence promoted.
Care plans were personalised and provided guidance for staff on how to best to work with people. People told us they knew how to make complaints but had not needed to do so. The provider told us they could work with people who were at the end of their life but was not doing so at the time of our inspection.
The provider had not implemented the full range of their quality assurance processes and had not completed the audits that their continuous improvement plan identified. We only saw one audit, and this was completed incorrectly. We have made a recommendation about this. People, relatives and staff thought highly of the management team. Meetings were held for people, relatives and staff. The service sought to work with others and already had relationship with one local authority.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The service had not been previously inspected.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection that was part of our inspection schedule.
Enforcement:
During this inspection we identified a breach of one regulation relating to safe care and treatment. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Follow up: We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will monitor the progress of the improvements working alongside the provider and local authority. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.