Archived: Nightingales of Kidderminster

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 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.

The inspection took place over a period of one day and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to see us. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

We looked at the information we held about the provider of the service such as incidents, unexpected deaths or injuries to people receiving care, this also included any safeguarding matters. We refer to these as notifications and providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about these events.

We asked the local authority if they had any information to share with us about the service provided by the registered provider. The local authority are responsible for monitoring the quality and funding some people who use the service. They told us they had no concerns about the service.

Prior to our inspection the registered manager completed and returned to the CQC their Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a form which asks the registered persons to supply some key information about the service they provide, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the time we spent at the office we spoke with the two providers of the company, the general manager and the care coordinator. Following our time at the office we telephoned people who received a service from the agency about their experiences. We spoke with six people who used the service and four relatives. In addition we spoke with five members of staff. Some of these staff members were senior support workers while others were support workers.

We reviewed the care records held at the office for three people and viewed two staff recruitment records. We also viewed records relating to the management and quality assurance of the service including audits and survey results.

Updated 30 November 2015

This announced inspection took place on 14 October 2015. We gave the registered provider’s 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people who live in their homes or a family members home and we needed to be sure someone would be available at the office.

The provider registered this service with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care and support for people with a range of varying needs including people who were living with dementia. People either lived in the own home or with a relative or friend. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing personal care to about 22 adults.

There was a registered manager for this service. 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 registered manager was however on holiday when we carried out our inspection and therefore was not available. The registered manager was also registered to manage another service on the same site. People we spoke with and all the staff told us they rarely spoke with the registered manager but liaised more with the care coordinator.

People and their relatives told us they had no concerns about the quality of care provided by staff working at the agency. We were told staff treated people with dignity and respect and were caring while they provided support. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in the event of abuse taking place and had received appropriate training.

People confirmed that their consent was obtained prior to them receiving care and support and staff we spoke with had an understanding of the importance of this to ensure they were working in line with the law. Staff told us they received training to provide them the skills and knowledge to care and support people and meet their individual needs.

People told us they received support with preparing meals were this was needed. People were confident they would receive suitable support if they were unwell. Relatives told us staff had contacted them if they were concerned about their family member and had accessed health care professionals

People and their relatives were confident they could raise any concerns they had with office based staff and believed these would be taken seriously. People told us staff arrived on time and they received care from a regular team of staff who they knew. People told us they were made aware of any changes or if staff were delayed for any reason.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. The monitoring of the service was not always fully effective to identify issues within the care records. When shortfalls were highlighted as part of satisfaction surveys or staff meetings these were not always followed up in a timely way.