Archived: Allied Healthcare Luton

Updated 10 December 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 took place on 12 August 2015. The provider was given 48 hours notice because as the service was a domiciliary care agency we needed to be sure that they would be available on the day of the inspection.

The inspection team was made up of two inspectors.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete 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. We also reviewed the information available to us about the agency such as information from the local authority, information received about the service and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

During our inspection we spoke with one care worker, one coordinator, the continuous quality improvement assessor and the manager.

We reviewed the care records, risk assessments and daily records of ten people who used the service. We reviewed how complaints were managed, looked at ten staff records and the training records for all the staff employed at the service. We reviewed information on how the quality of the service was monitored and managed.

Following our visit to the service’s office we spoke with nine people who used the service and relatives of two people by telephone to ask for their views of the service. We also spoke with five care workers.

Updated 10 December 2015

This inspection took place on 12 August 2015 and it was announced.

At our previous inspection in February 2014 there were two areas where the service was not meeting regulations. These related to people receiving care at the times agreed within their care plans and the assessment of risks to people using the service. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made to the assessment of risk and additional improvements were planned for the scheduling of care visits.

Allied Healthcare Luton is a care agency providing personal care and support for people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the agency was providing a service to 150 people.

The agency does not have a registered manager as required by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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. At the time of this inspection the agency had been without a registered manager for 12 months. There was, however, a manager at the agency.

People told us that they felt safe but carers often arrived late and were not always the carer they expected.

People’s needs had been assessed and care plans took account of their individual needs although individual preferences and choices were not always recorded. There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how individual risks to people could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm.

Staff had an understanding of safeguarding processes and had completed training. Staff were supported by way of spot checks, supervisions and appraisals however these were not consistently completed for all staff.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and was actively recruiting additional staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided and were kind and respectful.

The provider had an effective process for handling complaints and concerns. These were recorded, investigated, responded to and actions to prevent recurrence were recorded.

The provider encouraged feedback on the service provided. However, the result of the latest survey had not been received by the agency. Therefore, an action plan had not been developed to address the issues raised with a view to continuously seeking to improve the service.

The provider organisation had effective quality monitoring processes in place.