Scrapes www.cqc.org.uk
The independent regulator of all health and social care services in England. The Care Quality Commission monitors, inspects and regulates hospitals, care homes, GP surgeries, dental practices and other care services to make sure they meet fundamental standards of quality and safety and publishes what it finds, including performance ratings to help people choose care.
To download data sign in with GitHub
rows 10 / 24009
overview | local_authority | run_by | overview_safe | report_date | postal_code | summary_responsive | reports_url | telephone | type_of_service | name | CQC_ID | summary_safe | overview_well_led | overview_caring | add4 | add1 | add3 | add2 | summary_caring | overview_effective | overview_description | latest_report | overview_responsive | run_by_url | overview_summary | services | summary_well_led | location_url | summary_effective |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inadequate
|
South East
|
Innowood Limited
|
Inadequate
|
16 November 2015
|
TN37 6HR
|
Updated 16 November 2015The service was not responsive. Care plans and risk assessments were not always reviewed regularly and updated when people’s needs changed. People’s care had not been designed or delivered to meet people’s preferences and ensure their individual needs were met. Where the responsibility for people’s care and treatment was shared with other people to include health care professionals, reviews of care had not always taken place with their involvement, in a timely and formalised way. There were inadequate activities based on people’s needs and wishes available at the service. The provider had not considered accessible ways of consulting all people to obtain their feedback about the service. Where people’s feedback had been obtained, it was not recorded what action had been taken to address comments made.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 16 November 2015 PDF | 360.82 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
1424716303
|
Nursing homes
|
Kingswood House Nursing Home
|
1-877912132
|
Updated 16 November 2015The service was not safe. Staff were not adequately trained to protect people from abuse and harm as they may not recognise potential types or signs of abuse. The environment was not clean or well maintained. Control measures were not in place to reduce the risk of infection or to ensure the environment was safe. There was insufficient management staff to ensure the safe operational running of the service to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were in place, however they were not up-to-date in all cases. People could not be assured that individual risks would be managed appropriately.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 16 November 2015 PDF | 360.82 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Requires improvement
|
Requires improvement
|
South East
|
21-23 Chapel Park Road
|
East Sussex
|
St Leonards On Sea
|
Updated 16 November 2015The service was not consistently caring. Most staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff. However we observed one incident where a staff member spoke disrespectfully to someone. The acting manager told us they would address this with the member of staff. The provider had not considered accessible ways to inform people about services available to them, to include advocacy. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to do as much for themselves as they were able to.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 16 November 2015 PDF | 360.82 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Requires improvement
|
Last updated 16 November 2015
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 was carried out on 24 and 25 August 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors, a specialist advisor and an expert by experience. The specialist advisor had professional experience of mental health and substance misuse services. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The acting manager had not received a Provider Information Return (PIR) request at the time of our visit. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make. We gathered this information during the inspection. Before our inspection we looked at records that were sent to us by the provider or the local authority to inform us of significant changes and event. This service had not been inspected since it registered under new provider ownership in October 2013. We looked at records which included those related to people’s care, staff management, staff recruitment and quality of the service. We looked at eight people’s assessments of needs and care plans. We made observations to check that their care and treatment was delivered consistently with these records. We looked at the activities programme and the satisfaction surveys that had been carried out. We spoke with thirteen people to gather feedback about their experience of the service. We spoke with the acting manager, the operations manager, a nurse and three members of care staff. We consulted a local authority quality monitoring officer and a practice nurse to obtain their feedback about the service.
|
Inspection carried out on 24 and 25 August 2015
During a routine inspection
The inspection was carried out on 24 and 25 August 2015 by two inspectors, a specialist clinical adviser and an expert by experience. It was an unannounced inspection. The service provides personal, nursing care and accommodation for a maximum of 22 people. The staff provided nursing and personal care for people with enduring mental health conditions, some of whom had a history of substance or alcohol misuse and a forensic background. Some people also had complex physical health conditions and behaviours which may challenge. Many people stayed at the service on a long term basis and may previously have experienced homelessness. The provider told us they aimed to support people to move to more independent services if their health needs allowed this, to enable them to live without full time support and nursing care. There was an acting manager in post who was acting up from a previous deputy manager role. The previous registered manager had recently resigned from their role. The service was in the process of recruiting a new full time manager who was due to take up the post, dependent on satisfactory recruitment checks. At the time of our inspection there was no 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. Staff had attended training in how to protect people from abuse and harm. However staff were not confident in describing how they would recognise potential signs of abuse and what processes they needed to follow to keep people safe. They said they would benefit from additional training in this area. Staff did not have the necessary training to meet the individual needs of people at the service. One to one supervision sessions for staff were carried out, however staff had not received spot checks to observe their care practice, to support them to increase their performance and competence. Annual appraisals had not taken place, however they were scheduled to take place in 2015. Staff were not able to describe the basic principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) to ensure they supported people legally in line with their consent. Staff said they needed training to better understand the requirements of this legislation. The provider had scheduled staff training in MCA and DoLS on the 15 September 2015. There was insufficient staff to meet people’s needs. There was not enough management hours allocated to support the effective operational running of the service. Whilst the provider had measures in place to recruit a new manager, deputy manager and additional nursing staff, this staffing arrangement was not in place at the time of our inspection. A lack of adequate training in safeguarding adults; a lack of adequate training and staff support to meet people’s individual needs and a lack of sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs are breaches of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had an improvement plan for the decoration and maintenance of the premises, however repairs we identified were not recorded on this plan. The acting manager said that it was difficult to change anything in the home as people often resisted change due to their health conditions. However, this should not prevent action being taken to make sure people remained safe. Failure to ensure the environment is properly maintained to keep people safe is a breach of Regulation 15 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider did not have a system for monitoring the cleanliness or maintaining effective infection control standards at the home. Where people had blood borne viruses or infectious diseases, there was no protocols in place to reduce the risk of infection to them and others. The provider had not adequately assessed infection control risks including those that are health care associated. Peoples care plans were not consistently reviewed to reflect any changes in their care and treatment needs. Where the responsibility for people’s care and treatment was shared with other people to include health care professionals, reviews of care had not always taken place with their involvement, in a timely and formalised way. Care reviews did not take into account preventative measures to ensure the health, safety and welfare of people. The failure to provide safe care and treatment; to protect people from harm by ensuring the premises are safe; to assess the risks of infections, protect people from these risks and provide a clean and hygienic environment which is properly maintained are breaches of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People’s individual risk assessments included measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow to make sure people were protected from harm. Although risk assessments were in place they were not always up-to-date. People could not be assured that risks would be managed appropriately due to a lack updated records. Audits were completed, however they did not adequately identify how the service could improve. The provider had not always identified all shortfalls or acted on the results of audits to make necessary changes to improve the quality of the service and care for people. The service sought people’s feedback, comments and suggestions. However, the provider had not explored accessible means of obtaining people’s feedback. The provider had not analysed the results of any feedback given by people and acted upon this to improve the service. Accidents and incidents were recorded, however they had not been monitored or analysed to identify how the risks of re-occurrence could be reduced to keep people safe. Failure to adequately assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service, to include people’s views of the service, and the failure to ensure risk assessments records are up-to-date are breaches of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Staff did not know each person well or understand how to meet their support needs. Each person’s needs and personal preferences had been assessed before they moved into the service, however, staff did not always have accurate knowledge to provide person centred, consistent care. People’s care plans did not take into account or monitor progress with people’s longer term goals and objectives. Where people had expressed a preference to move on from the service, this had not been assessed to support those people to work towards meeting their goals where possible. There were insufficient activities for people to engage in at the service. The acting manager and activities co-ordinator tried to involve people in the planning of activities. They said that it was difficult to engage people in activities. Some people were able to go out independently. Failure to provide person centred care and treatment to meet people’s needs, to include activities and failure to provide care or treatment designed with a view to achieving people’s preferences are breaches of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission of all significant events that affected people or the service. We brought this to the attention of the provider and they implemented training sessions for the acting manager to update their knowledge in this area. It was too soon to evidence whether there was an improvement in this area. Failure to notify CQC of significant events at the service is a breach of Regulation 18 of The Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. Most staff treated people with kindness and respect. However, we observed one incident where a staff member spoke with someone in a way which was not compassionate or caring and did not promote their dignity. The acting manager was concerned to hear about this and said they would act swiftly to address this. Not everyone was satisfied about how their care and treatment was delivered. We have made a recommendation about training for staff in providing care and support to people with dignity and compassion. Information about how to access advocacy services was not provided in a clear and accessible way to all people. There was no information on activities available to people. Menus and satisfaction surveys were provided for people in a suitable format. We have made a recommendation that the provider explores different ways of giving people information about services available to them in accessible formats and supports people to access these services. Information leaflets were available to inform people about the complaints procedure. However these were not always provided in an accessible format. People were not always aware of how to make a complaint. No complaint had been received in the last 12 months before this inspection. We have made a recommendation about giving people information about how to make a complaint in accessible formats and supporting people to make a complaint when required. Not everyone had their cultural and spiritual needs met. We have made a recommendation that the provider reviews and supports people to meet their diverse care, cultural and spiritual needs. There were safe recruitment procedures in place which included the checking of references. Accidents and incidents were recorded and although there was no system to analyse these to look for patterns or trends individually, control measures were put in place to reduce risks to people. All fire protection equipment was serviced and maintained. Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Where people required a DoLS the acting manager had completed DoLS applications appropriately. They understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. The service provided meals that were in sufficient quantity, well balanced and met people’s needs and choices. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and restrictions. The overall rating for this provider is ‘Inadequate’. This means that it has been placed into ‘Special Measures’ by CQC. The purpose of special measures is to: Ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve. Provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and work with, or signpost to, other organisations in the system to ensure improvements are made. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action.
Download full reportInspection report published 16 November 2015 PDF | 360.82 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Inadequate
|
Updated 16 November 2015The inspection was carried out on 24 and 25 August 2015 by two inspectors, a specialist clinical adviser and an expert by experience. It was an unannounced inspection. The service provides personal, nursing care and accommodation for a maximum of 22 people. The staff provided nursing and personal care for people with enduring mental health conditions, some of whom had a history of substance or alcohol misuse and a forensic background. Some people also had complex physical health conditions and behaviours which may challenge. Many people stayed at the service on a long term basis and may previously have experienced homelessness. The provider told us they aimed to support people to move to more independent services if their health needs allowed this, to enable them to live without full time support and nursing care. There was an acting manager in post who was acting up from a previous deputy manager role. The previous registered manager had recently resigned from their role. The service was in the process of recruiting a new full time manager who was due to take up the post, dependent on satisfactory recruitment checks. At the time of our inspection there was no 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. Staff had attended training in how to protect people from abuse and harm. However staff were not confident in describing how they would recognise potential signs of abuse and what processes they needed to follow to keep people safe. They said they would benefit from additional training in this area. Staff did not have the necessary training to meet the individual needs of people at the service. One to one supervision sessions for staff were carried out, however staff had not received spot checks to observe their care practice, to support them to increase their performance and competence. Annual appraisals had not taken place, however they were scheduled to take place in 2015. Staff were not able to describe the basic principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) to ensure they supported people legally in line with their consent. Staff said they needed training to better understand the requirements of this legislation. The provider had scheduled staff training in MCA and DoLS on the 15 September 2015. There was insufficient staff to meet people’s needs. There was not enough management hours allocated to support the effective operational running of the service. Whilst the provider had measures in place to recruit a new manager, deputy manager and additional nursing staff, this staffing arrangement was not in place at the time of our inspection. A lack of adequate training in safeguarding adults; a lack of adequate training and staff support to meet people’s individual needs and a lack of sufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs are breaches of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had an improvement plan for the decoration and maintenance of the premises, however repairs we identified were not recorded on this plan. The acting manager said that it was difficult to change anything in the home as people often resisted change due to their health conditions. However, this should not prevent action being taken to make sure people remained safe. Failure to ensure the environment is properly maintained to keep people safe is a breach of Regulation 15 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider did not have a system for monitoring the cleanliness or maintaining effective infection control standards at the home. Where people had blood borne viruses or infectious diseases, there was no protocols in place to reduce the risk of infection to them and others. The provider had not adequately assessed infection control risks including those that are health care associated. Peoples care plans were not consistently reviewed to reflect any changes in their care and treatment needs. Where the responsibility for people’s care and treatment was shared with other people to include health care professionals, reviews of care had not always taken place with their involvement, in a timely and formalised way. Care reviews did not take into account preventative measures to ensure the health, safety and welfare of people. The failure to provide safe care and treatment; to protect people from harm by ensuring the premises are safe; to assess the risks of infections, protect people from these risks and provide a clean and hygienic environment which is properly maintained are breaches of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People’s individual risk assessments included measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow to make sure people were protected from harm. Although risk assessments were in place they were not always up-to-date. People could not be assured that risks would be managed appropriately due to a lack updated records. Audits were completed, however they did not adequately identify how the service could improve. The provider had not always identified all shortfalls or acted on the results of audits to make necessary changes to improve the quality of the service and care for people. The service sought people’s feedback, comments and suggestions. However, the provider had not explored accessible means of obtaining people’s feedback. The provider had not analysed the results of any feedback given by people and acted upon this to improve the service. Accidents and incidents were recorded, however they had not been monitored or analysed to identify how the risks of re-occurrence could be reduced to keep people safe. Failure to adequately assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service, to include people’s views of the service, and the failure to ensure risk assessments records are up-to-date are breaches of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Staff did not know each person well or understand how to meet their support needs. Each person’s needs and personal preferences had been assessed before they moved into the service, however, staff did not always have accurate knowledge to provide person centred, consistent care. People’s care plans did not take into account or monitor progress with people’s longer term goals and objectives. Where people had expressed a preference to move on from the service, this had not been assessed to support those people to work towards meeting their goals where possible. There were insufficient activities for people to engage in at the service. The acting manager and activities co-ordinator tried to involve people in the planning of activities. They said that it was difficult to engage people in activities. Some people were able to go out independently. Failure to provide person centred care and treatment to meet people’s needs, to include activities and failure to provide care or treatment designed with a view to achieving people’s preferences are breaches of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission of all significant events that affected people or the service. We brought this to the attention of the provider and they implemented training sessions for the acting manager to update their knowledge in this area. It was too soon to evidence whether there was an improvement in this area. Failure to notify CQC of significant events at the service is a breach of Regulation 18 of The Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. Most staff treated people with kindness and respect. However, we observed one incident where a staff member spoke with someone in a way which was not compassionate or caring and did not promote their dignity. The acting manager was concerned to hear about this and said they would act swiftly to address this. Not everyone was satisfied about how their care and treatment was delivered. We have made a recommendation about training for staff in providing care and support to people with dignity and compassion. Information about how to access advocacy services was not provided in a clear and accessible way to all people. There was no information on activities available to people. Menus and satisfaction surveys were provided for people in a suitable format. We have made a recommendation that the provider explores different ways of giving people information about services available to them in accessible formats and supports people to access these services. Information leaflets were available to inform people about the complaints procedure. However these were not always provided in an accessible format. People were not always aware of how to make a complaint. No complaint had been received in the last 12 months before this inspection. We have made a recommendation about giving people information about how to make a complaint in accessible formats and supporting people to make a complaint when required. Not everyone had their cultural and spiritual needs met. We have made a recommendation that the provider reviews and supports people to meet their diverse care, cultural and spiritual needs. There were safe recruitment procedures in place which included the checking of references. Accidents and incidents were recorded and although there was no system to analyse these to look for patterns or trends individually, control measures were put in place to reduce risks to people. All fire protection equipment was serviced and maintained. Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Where people required a DoLS the acting manager had completed DoLS applications appropriately. They understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. The service provided meals that were in sufficient quantity, well balanced and met people’s needs and choices. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and restrictions. The overall rating for this provider is ‘Inadequate’. This means that it has been placed into ‘Special Measures’ by CQC. The purpose of special measures is to: Ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve. Provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and work with, or signpost to, other organisations in the system to ensure improvements are made. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 16 November 2015 PDF | 360.82 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Caring for adults under 65 yrs|Mental health conditions|Accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care|Treatment of disease, disorder or injury
|
Updated 16 November 2015The service was not well led. The quality assurance system in place did not effectively identify all service shortfalls. The action plans did not record when actions should be completed, to ensure service improvements were made. The provider had not notified us of significant events at the service in line with their regulatory and legal obligations. Staff were not clear on their roles and responsibilities and did not have a clear understanding of the provider’s philosophy of care to ensure people were provided with continuity of care.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 16 November 2015 PDF | 360.82 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Updated 16 November 2015The service was not effective. Staff were not adequately trained and did not have the required competence to meet people’s individual care and treatment needs. The acting manager understood when an application for DoLS should be made and how to submit one. However, staff were not adequately trained in the principles of the MCA (2005) and were not knowledgeable about the requirements of the legislation. Care and treatment was not always planned or delivered to meet people’s individual needs. Staff did not always have the required knowledge to meet people’s individual care and treatment needs. People’s cultural and spiritual needs were not met in all cases.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 16 November 2015 PDF | 360.82 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
|||
Overview and CQC Inspections
|
South East
|
Red Kite Home Care Limited
|
|
19 February 2014
|
SL1 7JZ
|
|
|
Homecare agencies
|
Red Kite Home Care
|
1-189974057
|
|
|
|
South East
|
14 Shepherd's Court 111 High Street
|
Buckinghamshire
|
Slough
|
|
|
Last updated 19 February 2014
Red Kite Home Care offers personal care and support services to people in their homes and local community.
|
Inspection carried out on 23 January 2014
During a routine inspection
We spoke with three people who received services from Red Kite and all three were pleased with the care. One person said 'I am very happy with them and I have no complaints. If I did have a complaint I am sure they would sort it out immediately'. Another person said 'they are reliable and flexible and I feel I have got to know them. I would recommend them to my friends.' We also spoke with a District Nurse on one of our visits who said that the liaison with Red Kite was good and there was 'a strong sense of partnership'.We found carefully selected, well trained, conscientious staff who wanted to deliver a safe service tailored to meet people's individual needs. We found that planning and co-ordination was effective and back-up was available for staff who needed additional support. We observed an induction programme that was taking place and the participants spoke highly of the training and said that the 'learning was exceptional'.We also spoke with four relatives and one said 'they really are very good and there is always someone there to talk to if you need them. They give me the reassurance that someone is there when I can't be and they offer companionship.'
View finding of report online
OR
Download full reportInspection Report published 19 February 2014 PDF | 79.24 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
|
|
Caring for adults under 65 yrs|Dementia|Mental health conditions|Caring for adults over 65 yrs|Physical disabilities|Personal care
|
|
|
|||
Good
|
North West
|
The Human Support Group Limited
|
Good
|
10 July 2015
|
M33 7HF
|
Updated 10 July 2015The service was responsive. There was a policy and procedure in place to respond to concerns and complaints. We found effective processes were in place for listening and learning from people’s experiences. People told us they were able to speak with the care coordinators or the manager regarding the care provided by the service.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 July 2015 PDF | 245.51 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
1619429490
|
Homecare agencies
|
Human Support Group Limited - Sale
|
1-101693918
|
Updated 10 July 2015The service was safe. There was a safeguarding policy and procedure in place. Staff were able to describe the various types of abuse and their responsibilities in regard to protecting people from abuse. There were systems in place to make sure people’s medicines were managed safely. Robust recruitment processes made sure only suitable staff were employed. There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 July 2015 PDF | 245.51 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Good
|
North West
|
59 Cross Street
|
Trafford
|
Sale
|
Updated 10 July 2015The service was caring. The staff understood people’s individual needs and they respected their choices. Peoples privacy and dignity were respected and they were encouraged to maintain their independence. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the care and support people needed and how they wanted their care to be provided.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 July 2015 PDF | 245.51 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Last updated 10 July 2015
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 was announced and was carried out on 11 May 2015. The 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. The expert’s area of expertise was caring for older people. Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete and return 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 any improvements they plan to make. The provider completed and returned the PIR form to us and we used this information as part of our inspection planning. We also looked at all the information we had about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the provider had sent to CQC. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us legally. We also received information from the local authority who commissioned services from the agency. During the office visit, we spoke with the manager, the area manager, one care coordinator, the occupational therapist and six members of care staff. We spoke on the telephone with 14 people who used the service and seven relatives of people who used the service. We visited and spoke with four people in their own homes. We looked at the care plans of seven people who used the service, staff recruitment files, and training and supervision records of five members of staff. We also looked at minutes of staff meetings and the quality monitoring systems records.
|
Inspection carried out on 11 May 2015
During a routine inspection
This inspection took place on 11 May 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit to make sure that the staff we needed to speak with were available. Human Support Group Ltd – Sale is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care services to people living in their own homes. Human Support Group Ltd – Sale also provide a reablement service with the aim of supporting people to prevent a hospital admission or to enable an early discharge from hospital. The service is arranged via the local authority and is usually provided for up to six weeks. The reablement team consists of a manager, a qualified occupational therapist, a senior carer and a team of care staff. On the day of the inspection, the agency was supporting 165 people on a long term basis. In addition 20 people were being supported by the reablement team. This service moved into this office on 18 October 2013 and this was the first inspection of the service at this location. The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the Sale, Partington, Altrincham, Stretford, Timperley and Urmston areas of Trafford. There was a manager in post who had submitted an application to register with the Care Quality Commission. The previous registered manager was promoted to area manager and was still based at the Sale office. 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. The service had a robust recruitment process in place. Staff were not employed before appropriate safety checks such as a check with the Disclosure and Barring Service had been carried out. This made sure that staff were safe to work with people who could be at risk. All new staff had an induction before they started working with people who used the service. The staff we spoke with told us this had provided them with the knowledge and skills to carry out their role. There was a training programme in place and staff told us they received support and guidance from the manager, the area manager and the director of the company. Staff were supported in their roles through regular supervision and annual appraisals. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is legislation to protect people who are not able to make decisions for themselves, particularly personal welfare, healthcare and financial matters. The manager understood their role and responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS and the importance of maintaining peoples rights. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek peoples consent to care in line with the requirements of the MCA. People’s needs had been assessed, and any risks to their health and safety had been identified. Care plans took account of people’s abilities, preferences, and choices. There was a complaints policy and procedure and people knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns.
Download full reportInspection report published 10 July 2015 PDF | 245.51 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Updated 10 July 2015This inspection took place on 11 May 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit to make sure that the staff we needed to speak with were available. Human Support Group Ltd – Sale is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care services to people living in their own homes. Human Support Group Ltd – Sale also provide a reablement service with the aim of supporting people to prevent a hospital admission or to enable an early discharge from hospital. The service is arranged via the local authority and is usually provided for up to six weeks. The reablement team consists of a manager, a qualified occupational therapist, a senior carer and a team of care staff. On the day of the inspection, the agency was supporting 165 people on a long term basis. In addition 20 people were being supported by the reablement team. This service moved into this office on 18 October 2013 and this was the first inspection of the service at this location. The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the Sale, Partington, Altrincham, Stretford, Timperley and Urmston areas of Trafford. There was a manager in post who had submitted an application to register with the Care Quality Commission. The previous registered manager was promoted to area manager and was still based at the Sale office. 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. The service had a robust recruitment process in place. Staff were not employed before appropriate safety checks such as a check with the Disclosure and Barring Service had been carried out. This made sure that staff were safe to work with people who could be at risk. All new staff had an induction before they started working with people who used the service. The staff we spoke with told us this had provided them with the knowledge and skills to carry out their role. There was a training programme in place and staff told us they received support and guidance from the manager, the area manager and the director of the company. Staff were supported in their roles through regular supervision and annual appraisals. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is legislation to protect people who are not able to make decisions for themselves, particularly personal welfare, healthcare and financial matters. The manager understood their role and responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS and the importance of maintaining peoples rights. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek peoples consent to care in line with the requirements of the MCA. People’s needs had been assessed, and any risks to their health and safety had been identified. Care plans took account of people’s abilities, preferences, and choices. There was a complaints policy and procedure and people knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 July 2015 PDF | 245.51 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Sensory impairments|Caring for adults under 65 yrs|Dementia|Mental health conditions|Caring for adults over 65 yrs|Substance misuse problems|Eating disorders|Physical disabilities|Personal care
|
Updated 10 July 2015The service was well led. There were effective quality assurance procedures in place which were used to monitor and improve the quality of the service. People who used the service and their relatives were enabled to routinely share their experiences of the service Staff told us they were able to approach the manager, area manager and the company director for advice with any concerns or issues relating to their work.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 July 2015 PDF | 245.51 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Updated 10 July 2015The service was effective. Staff received training and had the skills, knowledge and competency to meet the needs of the people who used the service. People who used the service told us that they were satisfied with the care and support that they received. We found the management and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 July 2015 PDF | 245.51 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
|||
Good
|
London
|
Elizabeth Peters Care Homes Limited
|
Good
|
30 November 2015
|
SE6 1HP
|
Updated 30 November 2015The service was responsive. People’s needs were assessed and their care records included detailed information and guidance for staff about how their needs should be met. People said they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. They were confident staff would listen to them and they were sure their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 30 November 2015 PDF | 221.47 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
2086974246
|
Residential homes
|
Little Haven
|
1-101666779
|
Updated 30 November 2015The service was safe. Staff were available in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs. Staff knew how to keep people safe. Staff knew how to identify abuse and follow their procedure to report to safeguarding authorities if they suspected that abuse had occurred. The risks to people who used the service were identified and managed appropriately. People were supported to have their medicines safely.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 30 November 2015 PDF | 221.47 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Good
|
London
|
133 Wellmeadow Road
|
Lewisham
|
London
|
Updated 30 November 2015The service was caring. Staff were caring and knowledgeable about the people they supported. People and their representatives were supported to make informed decisions about their care and the support they received. People’s privacy and dignity were respected.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 30 November 2015 PDF | 221.47 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Last updated 30 November 2015
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 unannounced inspection took place on 24 September 2015 and was carried out by one inspector. Before the inspection we reviewed information we had received from the provider which included notifications about incidents at the service. We used this information to plan the inspection. During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, two members of staff, and the manager. We observed how staff interacted and supported people; and how they gave information about people from one shift to the next. We looked at four people’s care records and medicines administration records (MAR) for the nine people using the service. We looked at three staff files and records relating to the management of the service such as health and safety and complaints.
|
Inspection carried out on 24 September 2015
During a routine inspection
This inspection took place on 24 September 2015 and was unannounced. Little Haven Care Home provides accommodation and care to a maximum of 11 people with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection, there were nine people using the service. The home had a registered manager. 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. The last inspection of the service took place on 18 September 2014 where we found the service was not meeting the regulations relating to the care and welfare of people. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements. They sent us an improvement plan. At this inspection, we found that the provider had made the required improvements. People received individualised support that met their needs. There were risk management plans in place to ensure that people were protected from risks associated with their care and support. People, their relatives or representatives were involved in planning their care and support to ensure it reflected their needs and preferences; and their views about how their care should be delivered was acted on. Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely. Staff received the training, support and supervision to deliver their roles effectively. Staff understood what to do if people could not make decisions about their care needs as assessments of people’s capacity had been carried out. Staff had received training on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People consented to their care and support before it was delivered. People were provided with a choice of food, and were supported to eat when required. People had access to healthcare professionals and were supported effectively to meet their healthcare needs. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People’s privacy and independence was promoted. People were positively engaged and kept occupied with activities they enjoyed. People were supported to take part in community activities. People’s complaints and concerns were responded to appropriately and they were encouraged to give feedback about the service they received. People and staff said the manager was approachable and supportive; and they worked as a team to improve the service provided. The registered manager and provider carried out regular audits and checks and put actions in place to improve the service.
Download full reportInspection report published 30 November 2015 PDF | 221.47 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Updated 30 November 2015This inspection took place on 24 September 2015 and was unannounced. Little Haven Care Home provides accommodation and care to a maximum of 11 people with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection, there were nine people using the service. The home had a registered manager. 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. The last inspection of the service took place on 18 September 2014 where we found the service was not meeting the regulations relating to the care and welfare of people. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements. They sent us an improvement plan. At this inspection, we found that the provider had made the required improvements. People received individualised support that met their needs. There were risk management plans in place to ensure that people were protected from risks associated with their care and support. People, their relatives or representatives were involved in planning their care and support to ensure it reflected their needs and preferences; and their views about how their care should be delivered was acted on. Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely. Staff received the training, support and supervision to deliver their roles effectively. Staff understood what to do if people could not make decisions about their care needs as assessments of people’s capacity had been carried out. Staff had received training on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People consented to their care and support before it was delivered. People were provided with a choice of food, and were supported to eat when required. People had access to healthcare professionals and were supported effectively to meet their healthcare needs. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People’s privacy and independence was promoted. People were positively engaged and kept occupied with activities they enjoyed. People were supported to take part in community activities. People’s complaints and concerns were responded to appropriately and they were encouraged to give feedback about the service they received. People and staff said the manager was approachable and supportive; and they worked as a team to improve the service provided. The registered manager and provider carried out regular audits and checks and put actions in place to improve the service.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 30 November 2015 PDF | 221.47 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Mental health conditions|Accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care
|
Updated 30 November 2015The service was well-led. The service had an open and transparent culture in which good practice was identified and encouraged. Systems were in place to ensure the quality of the service people received was assessed and monitored, and these resulted in improvements to service delivery.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 30 November 2015 PDF | 221.47 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Updated 30 November 2015The service was effective. People received care from staff who were trained to meet their individual needs. Staff were supported by managers to carry out their roles effectively. The registered manager had taken sufficient action to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People consented to their care where they were able to. People received a variety of meals and their nutrition and dietary needs were met. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 30 November 2015 PDF | 221.47 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
|||
Good
|
South West
|
Highlands Care Home Limited
|
Good
|
20 April 2015
|
EX1 2QE
|
Updated 20 April 2015The service was not always fully responsive. People and their advocates were involved in planning and reviewing their care. They received personalised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs. Care plans were currently being transferred from paper to a computer system. Care records did not always reflect instructions to staff about health issues clearly which could result in a risk that not all staff knew what to do or follow up. However, staff were knowledgeable about people needs and the manager was addressing the issue. People made choices about all aspects of their day to day lives. People took part in social activities, trips out of the home and were supported to follow their personal interests. People and their advocates shared their views on the care they received and on the home more generally. People’s experiences, concerns or complaints were used to improve the service where possible and practical.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 20 April 2015 PDF | 268.84 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
1392491261
|
Residential homes
|
Highlands Borders Care Home
|
1-101693962
|
Updated 20 April 2015The service was safe. The provider had systems in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. People told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff who supported them. Staff we spoke with were aware of how to recognise and report signs of abuse. They were confident that action would be taken to make sure people were safe if they reported any concerns. People were supported with their medicines in a safe way by staff who had appropriate training.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 20 April 2015 PDF | 268.84 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Good
|
South West
|
22 Salutary Mount Heavitree
|
Devon
|
Exeter
|
Updated 20 April 2015The service was caring. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect. People and their advocates were consulted, listened to and their views were acted upon. Where people had specific wishes about the care they would like to receive at the end of their lives these were recorded in the care records. This ensured that all staff knew how the person wanted to be cared for at the end of their life.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 20 April 2015 PDF | 268.84 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Last updated 20 April 2015
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 9 February 2015. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. It was carried out by an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. We reviewed information we held about the provider. This service had not been inspected since registering with CQC in 2013. At the time of this inspection there were 16 people living at the home. During the day we spoke with 10 people who lived at the home, seven relatives who were visiting and one health care professional. We also spoke with eight members of staff, including the manager, head of care, the cook and a new care worker. We looked at a sample of records relating to the running of the home such as medication records, audits, three staff files and to the care of three individuals. As many people were living with some degree of dementia and were not always able to tell us directly about their experience we spent time observing care in the communal areas and during lunch.
|
Inspection carried out on 9 February 2015
During a routine inspection
Highlands Borders Care Home is a care home which is registered to provide care for up to 17 people. The home specialises in the care of older people but does not provide nursing care . There is a manager who is responsible for the home. They had applied and were currently going through the process to apply for registration with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. On the day of the inspection there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff interacted with people in a friendly and respectful way. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence. They made choices about their day to day lives which were respected by staff. People were well cared for and were involved in planning and reviewing their care or their relative was involved if they were unable to. There were regular reviews of people’s needs and staff responded promptly to changes in need. However, care records were being transferred to the new computer system which had meant that not all care records showed clear instructions to staff about how to meet people’s needs fully. For example, some instructions to staff were recorded in the daily records rather than the care plan. This meant their was a risk staff may not know about ong-oing care if this was not mentioned verbally in the shift handover . People said the home was a safe place for them to live. Most people were living with a degree of dementia meaning they were not always able to tell us directly about their experience at the home. People looked happy and comfortable chatting with staff. One relative said the care at the home made them feel more relaxed as it was reassuring to know their relative was cared for so well. Another relative said the home was “even better than a home from home” and they had made many friends. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns. Staff were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected. People said they would not hesitate in speaking with staff if they had any concerns. People knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to but felt that issues would usually be resolved informally. One relative gave an example where they had spoken to the manager about a concern which had been dealt with quickly and had not occurred again. They felt confident any issues were addressed. People were assisted to attend appointments with appropriate health and social care professionals to ensure they received treatment and support for their specific needs. Staff had good knowledge of people including their needs and preferences. Staff were well trained; there were good opportunities for on-going training and for obtaining additional qualifications. Comments about staff included “I congratulate the manager for running such a good establishment. The staff are excellent.” And “I have nothing but admiration for the staff at Highland Borders”. People’s privacy was respected. Staff ensured people kept in touch with family and friends. Where people had no close family staff ensured they spent time with that person and took them out regularly. Relatives confirmed they were always made welcome and were able to visit at any time. People were able to see their visitors in communal areas or in private. One relative said “The staff make my relative feel at home. Nothing is too much trouble and they are so keen to help in any way they can”. People were provided with a variety of activities and trips. People could choose to take part if they wished. During the inspection people were enjoying a beanbag game, going out to town and chatting with staff about music and Valentines Day. Staff at the home had been able to build strong links with the local community including regular visits to the local church, pub, shops and memory café. There was a management structure in the home which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The manager showed great enthusiasm in wanting to provide the best level of care possible. Staff had clearly adopted the same ethos and enthusiasm and this showed in the way they cared for people. One staff member was moving further away but had wished continue to work at Highlands Borders “as it’s so lovely here”. The manager had taken into account travel time when organising their shifts to make this possible. Staff said they felt valued and always enjoyed coming to work. There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people’s views about the running of the home. People’s views were acted upon where possible and practical. A comment from a relative in the 2014 quality assurance survey said “We cannot believe how lucky we were to find Highland Borders. Nothing is too much trouble for the staff who are caring and most of all give people time”.
Download full reportInspection report published 20 April 2015 PDF | 268.84 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Requires improvement
|
Updated 20 April 2015Highlands Borders Care Home is a care home which is registered to provide care for up to 17 people. The home specialises in the care of older people but does not provide nursing care . There is a manager who is responsible for the home. They had applied and were currently going through the process to apply for registration with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. On the day of the inspection there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff interacted with people in a friendly and respectful way. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence. They made choices about their day to day lives which were respected by staff. People were well cared for and were involved in planning and reviewing their care or their relative was involved if they were unable to. There were regular reviews of people’s needs and staff responded promptly to changes in need. However, care records were being transferred to the new computer system which had meant that not all care records showed clear instructions to staff about how to meet people’s needs fully. For example, some instructions to staff were recorded in the daily records rather than the care plan. This meant their was a risk staff may not know about ong-oing care if this was not mentioned verbally in the shift handover . People said the home was a safe place for them to live. Most people were living with a degree of dementia meaning they were not always able to tell us directly about their experience at the home. People looked happy and comfortable chatting with staff. One relative said the care at the home made them feel more relaxed as it was reassuring to know their relative was cared for so well. Another relative said the home was “even better than a home from home” and they had made many friends. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns. Staff were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected. People said they would not hesitate in speaking with staff if they had any concerns. People knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to but felt that issues would usually be resolved informally. One relative gave an example where they had spoken to the manager about a concern which had been dealt with quickly and had not occurred again. They felt confident any issues were addressed. People were assisted to attend appointments with appropriate health and social care professionals to ensure they received treatment and support for their specific needs. Staff had good knowledge of people including their needs and preferences. Staff were well trained; there were good opportunities for on-going training and for obtaining additional qualifications. Comments about staff included “I congratulate the manager for running such a good establishment. The staff are excellent.” And “I have nothing but admiration for the staff at Highland Borders”. People’s privacy was respected. Staff ensured people kept in touch with family and friends. Where people had no close family staff ensured they spent time with that person and took them out regularly. Relatives confirmed they were always made welcome and were able to visit at any time. People were able to see their visitors in communal areas or in private. One relative said “The staff make my relative feel at home. Nothing is too much trouble and they are so keen to help in any way they can”. People were provided with a variety of activities and trips. People could choose to take part if they wished. During the inspection people were enjoying a beanbag game, going out to town and chatting with staff about music and Valentines Day. Staff at the home had been able to build strong links with the local community including regular visits to the local church, pub, shops and memory café. There was a management structure in the home which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The manager showed great enthusiasm in wanting to provide the best level of care possible. Staff had clearly adopted the same ethos and enthusiasm and this showed in the way they cared for people. One staff member was moving further away but had wished continue to work at Highlands Borders “as it’s so lovely here”. The manager had taken into account travel time when organising their shifts to make this possible. Staff said they felt valued and always enjoyed coming to work. There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people’s views about the running of the home. People’s views were acted upon where possible and practical. A comment from a relative in the 2014 quality assurance survey said “We cannot believe how lucky we were to find Highland Borders. Nothing is too much trouble for the staff who are caring and most of all give people time”.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 20 April 2015 PDF | 268.84 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Caring for adults under 65 yrs|Dementia|Learning disabilities|Caring for adults over 65 yrs|Physical disabilities|Accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care
|
Updated 20 April 2015The service was well led. There was an honest and open culture within the staff team. They had developed strong links with the local community. There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the management team. The manager or a senior carer led each shift to ensure the quality and consistency of care and people met with a named key worker regularly. Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to make sure people received appropriate support to meet their needs. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed and the service took account of good practice guidelines.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 20 April 2015 PDF | 268.84 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Updated 20 April 2015The service was effective. People and/or their advocates were involved in their care and people were cared for in accordance with their preferences and choices. Staff had a very good knowledge of each person and how to meet their needs. Staff received on-going training to make sure they had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care to people. People saw health and social care professionals when they needed to. This made sure they received appropriate care and treatment. The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had a good understanding of people’s legal rights and the correct processes had been followed regarding the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 20 April 2015 PDF | 268.84 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
|||
Requires improvement
|
North East
|
Perfect Care Limited
|
Requires improvement
|
10 February 2016
|
DH1 2QW
|
Updated 10 February 2016 The service was not always responsive. Some care records were inconsistently completed. The home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service. The provider had a complaints policy and complaints were fully investigated. People who used the service knew how to make a complaint. Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 February 2016 PDF | 256.74 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
1913849853
|
Nursing homes
|
Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home
|
1-241243645
|
Updated 10 February 2016 The service was not always safe. People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service and the provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place. Thorough investigations had been carried out in response to safeguarding incidents or allegations. Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 February 2016 PDF | 256.74 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Requires improvement
|
Good
|
North East
|
Broomside Lane
|
Durham
|
Durham
|
Updated 10 February 2016The service was caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to be independent and care for themselves where possible. People were well presented and staff talked with people in a polite and respectful manner.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 February 2016 PDF | 256.74 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Requires improvement
|
Last updated 10 February 2016
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 4 and 7 December 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. One Adult Social Care inspector and a specialist advisor in nursing took part in this inspection. Before we visited the home we checked the information we held about this location and the service provider, for example, inspection history, safeguarding notifications and complaints. No concerns had been raised. We also contacted professionals involved in caring for people who used the service, including commissioners and safeguarding staff and infection control team. No concerns were raised by any of these professionals. Before the inspection, the provider completed 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. During our inspection we spoke with four people who used the service and one family member. We also spoke with the registered manager, a nurse, two care staff, the cook and a visiting health care professional. We looked at the personal care or treatment records of four people who used the service and observed how people were being cared for. We also looked at the personnel files for three members of staff and records relating to the management of the service, such as quality audits, policies and procedures.
|
Inspection carried out on 4 and 7 December 2015
During a routine inspection
This inspection took place on 4 and 7 December 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home provides personal and nursing care for up to 30 older people. On the day of our inspection there were 27 people using the service. This was made up of 22 permanent residents, one respite and four Intermediate Care Plus clients. Intermediate Care Plus (ICP) is a range of health and social care services. The benefits of ICP include preventing inappropriate hospital admissions, promoting faster recovery from illness or injury and providing care at, or close to, home. The registered manager told us permanent beds at the home were full and there was a waiting list for permanent admissions. The home had a registered manager in place. 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. Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home was last inspected by CQC on 2 June 2014 and was compliant. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. Thorough investigations had been carried out in response to safeguarding incidents or allegations. People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. Staff training was not up to date and staff did not receive regular supervisions and appraisals. The home was clean and suitable for the people who used the service. People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. The provider was working within the principles of the MCA. People who used the service, and family members, were complimentary about the standard of care at Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible. We saw that the home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service. Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they moved into Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home however care plans were not written in a person centred way and some care records were inconsistently completed. The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and complaints were fully investigated. The provider did not have a robust quality assurance system in place. The service had good links with the local community. We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Download full reportInspection report published 10 February 2016 PDF | 256.74 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Requires improvement
|
Updated 10 February 2016This inspection took place on 4 and 7 December 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home provides personal and nursing care for up to 30 older people. On the day of our inspection there were 27 people using the service. This was made up of 22 permanent residents, one respite and four Intermediate Care Plus clients. Intermediate Care Plus (ICP) is a range of health and social care services. The benefits of ICP include preventing inappropriate hospital admissions, promoting faster recovery from illness or injury and providing care at, or close to, home. The registered manager told us permanent beds at the home were full and there was a waiting list for permanent admissions. The home had a registered manager in place. 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. Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home was last inspected by CQC on 2 June 2014 and was compliant. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. Thorough investigations had been carried out in response to safeguarding incidents or allegations. People were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. Staff training was not up to date and staff did not receive regular supervisions and appraisals. The home was clean and suitable for the people who used the service. People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. The provider was working within the principles of the MCA. People who used the service, and family members, were complimentary about the standard of care at Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible. We saw that the home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service. Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they moved into Belmont Grange Nursing and Residential Home however care plans were not written in a person centred way and some care records were inconsistently completed. The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and complaints were fully investigated. The provider did not have a robust quality assurance system in place. The service had good links with the local community. We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 February 2016 PDF | 256.74 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Caring for adults under 65 yrs|Caring for adults over 65 yrs|Physical disabilities|Accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care|Treatment of disease, disorder or injury|Diagnostic and screening procedures
|
Updated 10 February 2016The service was not always well led. The provider did not have a robust quality assurance system in place. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and they felt supported in their role. The service had good links with the local community.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 February 2016 PDF | 256.74 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Updated 10 February 2016 The service was not always effective. Staff training was not up to date and staff did not receive regular supervisions and appraisals. People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition. The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 10 February 2016 PDF | 256.74 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
|||
CQC have not inspected this service yet
|
West Midlands
|
Optical Express Limited
|
|
|
B4 7SL
|
|
|
8000232020
|
Clinic
|
Optical Express - Birmingham Clinic
|
1-983441221
|
|
|
|
West Midlands
|
41 High Street
|
Birmingham
|
Birmingham
|
|
|
|
If you're the provider who runs this service:
About your profile
Put this information on your website
|
|
|
Caring for adults under 65 yrs|Caring for adults over 65 yrs|Treatment of disease, disorder or injury|Surgical procedures|Diagnostic and screening procedures
|
|
|
||
Good
|
South East
|
Cura Muneris Limited
|
Good
|
14 January 2016
|
RH15 9LH
|
Updated 14 January 2016The service was responsive. People and their relatives were asked for their views about the service through questionnaires and surveys. People told us they felt listened to and staff responded to their needs. People told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service. Where complaints or concerns had arisen, a detailed investigation and action had been taken to reduce the risk of the issue from happening again. Care plans were in place to ensure people received care which was personalised to meet their needs, wishes and aspirations.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 14 January 2016 PDF | 249.16 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
1444244770
|
Homecare agencies
|
Everycare Midsussex
|
1-962890981
|
Updated 14 January 2016The service was safe. People and relatives told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Detailed risk assessments were in place to ensure people were safe within their home and when they received care and support. Medication was administered and managed appropriately. The service had policies in place to protect people from abuse, and staff had a clear understanding of what to do if safeguarding concerns were identified. There were enough staff to deliver care safely, and ensure that people’s care calls were covered when staff were absent. When the service employed new staff they followed safe recruitment practices.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 14 January 2016 PDF | 249.16 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Requires improvement
|
Good
|
South East
|
Kings House 68 Victoria Road
|
West Sussex
|
Burgess Hill
|
Updated 14 January 2016The service was caring. People were pleased with the care and support they received. They felt their individual needs were met and understood by caring staff. They told us that they felt involved with their care and that they mattered. Staff knew the care and support needs of people well and took an interest in people and their families to provide individual personal care. Staff were able to give us examples of how they protected people’s dignity and treated them with respect. Staff were also able to explain the importance of confidentiality, so that people’s privacy was protected. Care records were maintained safely and people’s information kept confidentially.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 14 January 2016 PDF | 249.16 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Last updated 14 January 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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. The inspection took place on the 7 December 2015 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of this inspection was given, which meant the provider and staff knew we were coming. We did this to ensure that appropriate office staff were available to talk with us, and that people using the service were made aware that we may contact them to obtain their views. An inspector and an expert by experience in older people’s care undertook this inspection. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience helped us with the telephone calls to get feedback from people. Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, considered information which had been shared with us by the Local Authority, and looked at safeguarding alerts that had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. Before the inspection we spoke with the Local Authority to ask them about their experiences of the service provided to people. On the day of the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the provider, a co-ordinator and three care staff. After the inspection we contacted 12 people that used the service, or their family members by telephone. Over the course of the day we spent time reviewing the records held by the service. We looked at four staff files, complaints recording, accident/incident recording, staff rotas and other records related to the management of the service. We also reviewed five care plans and other relevant documentation to support our findings.
|
Inspection carried out on 7 December 2015
During a routine inspection
We inspected Everycare Midsussex on the 7 December 2015. Everycare Midsussex is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care for people with a range of needs living in their own homes. These included people living with dementia, older people and people with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection the service supported 52 people and employed approximately 28 staff. Everycare Midsussex operates as a franchise business, trading as Cura Muneris Limited. Everycare provide domiciliary care franchises and services across the UK. The service had a registered manager. 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. Everycare Midsussex was last inspected on 10 September 2014 and concerns were identified around care planning, quality monitoring and record keeping. Quality assurance was undertaken by the provider to measure and monitor the standard of the service provided. However, we found that despite checks taking place, we could not identify how the provider monitored or analysed information around accidents and incidents over time to determine trends, create learning and to make changes to the way the service was run. This is an area of practice that requires improvement. The service had good systems in place to keep people safe. Assessments of risks to people had been developed and were continually reviewed. The service employed enough, qualified and trained staff, and ensured safety through appropriate recruitment practices. People said they always got their care visit, they were happy with the care and the staff that supported them. One person told us, “I get the same group of carers and they are excellent. I feel totally safe with them. They are generally on time and stay for the full time”. Medicines were managed safely and people received the support they required from staff. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were administered and reviewed appropriately. Should people lack mental capacity to make specific decisions, the service was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests. Care staff always sought people’s consent before delivering care. One person told us, “They always ask my consent before they start anything for me”. People told us they were involved in the planning and review of their care. A person told us, “I had a planning meeting when I first came out of hospital and my son was involved”. We were given examples that showed the service had followed good practice and safe procedures in order to keep people safe. Staff received an induction, basic training and additional specialist training in areas such as dementia care and catheter care. Staff had group and one to one meetings which were held regularly, in order for them to discuss their role and share any information or concerns. If needed, people were supported with their food and drink and this was monitored if required. One person told us, “They make me some soup and always wash up the tea things”. Another person said, “They prepare my [relative’s] dinner for him and that really helps me”. The needs and choices of people had been clearly documented in their care plans. Where people’s needs changed the service acted quickly to ensure the person received the care and support they required. A member of staff told us, “I visited a person today and they were not well. We contacted the paramedics”. People and their family members told us they were supported by kind and caring staff. A person told us, “The carers who come to see me are so thoughtful. They speak pleasantly to me and we always have a laugh”. Another person said, “The care we get is excellent, nothing is too much trouble for them. They are polite and respectful to me and my [relative], she really likes them”. Staff were able to tell us about the people they supported, for example their likes, dislikes and preferences. People’s personal preferences were recorded on file and staff encouraged people to be involved in their care. A person told us, “We have had a review and about once every four months we get a [feedback] form to say what we think of the service”. People knew how to raise concerns or complaints and felt they would be listened to. The management provided good leadership and support to the staff. One member of staff told us, “The management are very open and honest. They care for their staff and keep us informed. They respect us and we respect them”. Quality assurance was undertaken by the provider to measure and monitor the standard of the service provided.
Download full reportInspection report published 14 January 2016 PDF | 249.16 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Updated 14 January 2016We inspected Everycare Midsussex on the 7 December 2015. Everycare Midsussex is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care for people with a range of needs living in their own homes. These included people living with dementia, older people and people with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection the service supported 52 people and employed approximately 28 staff. Everycare Midsussex operates as a franchise business, trading as Cura Muneris Limited. Everycare provide domiciliary care franchises and services across the UK. The service had a registered manager. 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. Everycare Midsussex was last inspected on 10 September 2014 and concerns were identified around care planning, quality monitoring and record keeping. Quality assurance was undertaken by the provider to measure and monitor the standard of the service provided. However, we found that despite checks taking place, we could not identify how the provider monitored or analysed information around accidents and incidents over time to determine trends, create learning and to make changes to the way the service was run. This is an area of practice that requires improvement. The service had good systems in place to keep people safe. Assessments of risks to people had been developed and were continually reviewed. The service employed enough, qualified and trained staff, and ensured safety through appropriate recruitment practices. People said they always got their care visit, they were happy with the care and the staff that supported them. One person told us, “I get the same group of carers and they are excellent. I feel totally safe with them. They are generally on time and stay for the full time”. Medicines were managed safely and people received the support they required from staff. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were administered and reviewed appropriately. Should people lack mental capacity to make specific decisions, the service was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests. Care staff always sought people’s consent before delivering care. One person told us, “They always ask my consent before they start anything for me”. People told us they were involved in the planning and review of their care. A person told us, “I had a planning meeting when I first came out of hospital and my son was involved”. We were given examples that showed the service had followed good practice and safe procedures in order to keep people safe. Staff received an induction, basic training and additional specialist training in areas such as dementia care and catheter care. Staff had group and one to one meetings which were held regularly, in order for them to discuss their role and share any information or concerns. If needed, people were supported with their food and drink and this was monitored if required. One person told us, “They make me some soup and always wash up the tea things”. Another person said, “They prepare my [relative’s] dinner for him and that really helps me”. The needs and choices of people had been clearly documented in their care plans. Where people’s needs changed the service acted quickly to ensure the person received the care and support they required. A member of staff told us, “I visited a person today and they were not well. We contacted the paramedics”. People and their family members told us they were supported by kind and caring staff. A person told us, “The carers who come to see me are so thoughtful. They speak pleasantly to me and we always have a laugh”. Another person said, “The care we get is excellent, nothing is too much trouble for them. They are polite and respectful to me and my [relative], she really likes them”. Staff were able to tell us about the people they supported, for example their likes, dislikes and preferences. People’s personal preferences were recorded on file and staff encouraged people to be involved in their care. A person told us, “We have had a review and about once every four months we get a [feedback] form to say what we think of the service”. People knew how to raise concerns or complaints and felt they would be listened to. The management provided good leadership and support to the staff. One member of staff told us, “The management are very open and honest. They care for their staff and keep us informed. They respect us and we respect them”. Quality assurance was undertaken by the provider to measure and monitor the standard of the service provided.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 14 January 2016 PDF | 249.16 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Caring for adults under 65 yrs|Dementia|Mental health conditions|Caring for adults over 65 yrs|Physical disabilities|Personal care
|
Updated 14 January 2016 The service was not consistently well-led. The provider completed a number of checks to ensure they provided a good quality service. However, we found that despite checks taking place, we could not identify how the provider monitored or analysed information around accidents and incidents over time to determine trends, create learning and to make changes to the way the service was run. Staff felt supported by management, said they were listened to, and understood what was expected of them. Staff promoted a positive and open culture. Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of what their roles and responsibilities were. Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 14 January 2016 PDF | 249.16 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Updated 14 January 2016 The service was effective. Staff understood people’s health needs and acted quickly when those needs changed. Where necessary, further support had been requested from the social services and other health care professionals. This ensured that the person’s changing needs could be met. Staff received regular training to ensure they had up to date information to undertake their roles and responsibilities. They were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to eat and drink according to their plan of care. Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 14 January 2016 PDF | 249.16 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
|||
Good
|
North West
|
Cherish UK Limited
|
Good
|
29 September 2015
|
FY4 3RS
|
Updated 29 September 2015The service was responsive. Care plans were in place outlining people’s care and support needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support needs, their interests and preferences in order to provide a personalised service. People were supported to maintain and develop relationships with people who mattered to them. People knew their comments and complaints would be listened to and responded to.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 29 September 2015 PDF | 234.14 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
1253766888
|
Homecare agencies
|
Cherish UK Ltd
|
1-101680050
|
Updated 29 September 2015The service was safe. The provider had procedures in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. People we spoke with said they felt safe. Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. Written plans were in place to manage these risks. There were processes for recording accidents and incidents. We saw that appropriate action was taken in response to incidents to maintain the safety of people who used the service. Staffing levels were sufficient with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people using the service.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 29 September 2015 PDF | 234.14 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Good
|
North West
|
8 Skyways Commercial Centre Blackpool Business Park Amy Johnson Way
|
Blackpool
|
Blackpool
|
Updated 29 September 2015The service was caring. People who used the service told us they were treated with kindness and compassion in their day to day care. People were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 29 September 2015 PDF | 234.14 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Last updated 29 September 2015
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 visit took place on 02 and 03 September 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people living in the community. We needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector 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. The expert by experience for the inspection at Cherish UK Ltd had experience of services who supported older people. Before our inspection on 02 and 03 September 2015 we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people the service supported. We also checked to see if any information concerning the care and welfare of people being supported had been received. During our inspection we went to the Cherish UK Ltd office and spoke with a range of people about the service. They included the care manager, human resources manager, training manager, quality monitoring officer and four staff members. We also spoke three people who used the service and the relatives of two people. We looked at the care records of three people, training and recruitment records of four staff members and records relating to the management of the service. We also spoke with the commissioning department at the local authority. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced accessing the service.
|
Inspection carried out on 02 and 03 September 2015
During a routine inspection
This inspection visit took place on 02 and 03 September 2015 and was announced. At the last inspection on 02 April 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time. Cherish UK Ltd is a privately owned domiciliary agency situated on Amy Johnson Way business park in Blackpool. The agency covers a wide range of dependency needs including adults and children, people with a learning disability, people who live with mental ill health and younger adults with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection visit Cherish UK Ltd provided services to 193 people. There was a registered manager in place. 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. We found recruitment procedures were safe with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff members commenced their employment. Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed a structured induction training and development programme was in place. Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs. The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices. People we spoke with told us they felt safe and their rights and dignity were respected. Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People told us they received their medicines at the times they needed them. People told us they were usually supported by the same group staff. This ensured people were visited by staff who understood their support needs and how they wanted this to be delivered. One person we spoke with said, “We have the same group of carers who visit our [relative]. The care they provide is very good and meets all our [relatives] needs.” The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot check and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they were receiving. The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care.
Download full reportInspection report published 29 September 2015 PDF | 234.14 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Good
|
Updated 29 September 2015This inspection visit took place on 02 and 03 September 2015 and was announced. At the last inspection on 02 April 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time. Cherish UK Ltd is a privately owned domiciliary agency situated on Amy Johnson Way business park in Blackpool. The agency covers a wide range of dependency needs including adults and children, people with a learning disability, people who live with mental ill health and younger adults with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection visit Cherish UK Ltd provided services to 193 people. There was a registered manager in place. 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. We found recruitment procedures were safe with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff members commenced their employment. Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed a structured induction training and development programme was in place. Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs. The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices. People we spoke with told us they felt safe and their rights and dignity were respected. Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People told us they received their medicines at the times they needed them. People told us they were usually supported by the same group staff. This ensured people were visited by staff who understood their support needs and how they wanted this to be delivered. One person we spoke with said, “We have the same group of carers who visit our [relative]. The care they provide is very good and meets all our [relatives] needs.” The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot check and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they were receiving. The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 29 September 2015 PDF | 234.14 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Caring for children (0 - 18yrs)|Sensory impairments|Dementia|Mental health conditions|Caring for adults over 65 yrs|Physical disabilities|Personal care
|
Updated 29 September 2015The service was well led. Systems and procedures were in place to monitor and assess the quality of service people were receiving. The registered manager consulted with stakeholders, people they supported and relatives for their input on how the service could continually improve. A range of audits were in place to monitor the health, safety and welfare of people. Quality assurance was checked upon and action was taken to make improvements, where applicable.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 29 September 2015 PDF | 234.14 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
Updated 29 September 2015The service was effective. People were supported by staff who were sufficiently trained, skilled and experienced to support them to have a good quality of life. They were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to eat and drink according to their plan of care. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with other healthcare professionals as required if they had concerns about a person’s health.Inspection reportDownload full reportInspection Report Published 29 September 2015 PDF | 234.14 KB (opens in a new tab)
|
|||
CQC have not inspected this service yet
|
South East
|
Optical Express Limited
|
|
|
DA9 9SJ
|
|
|
8000232020
|
Clinic
|
Optical Express - Bluewater Clinic
|
1-983441221
|
|
|
|
South East
|
Unit L40 Lower Thames Walk Bluewater
|
Kent
|
Greenhithe
|
|
|
|
If you're the provider who runs this service:
About your profile
Put this information on your website
|
|
|
Caring for adults under 65 yrs|Caring for adults over 65 yrs|Treatment of disease, disorder or injury|Surgical procedures|Diagnostic and screening procedures
|
|
|
Total run time: 1 day
Total cpu time used: less than 5 seconds
Total disk space used: 156 MB