This inspection took place on 21 January 2016 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of our intention to undertake an inspection. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people in their own homes and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office.
At the last inspection of the service on 8 May 2013 we found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.
Agincare (UK) Bristol provide support to people who live in the community. The range of support includes assistance with personal care, shopping, activities and appointments. At the time of our inspection Agincare (UK) Bristol provided services to 102 people.
There was a registered manager for the service. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
People’s medicines were not always managed safely although they were administered to people as prescribed. There were processes in place to help make sure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures. However, the provider’s policy in relation to managing people’s finances was not being followed accurately.
People who used the service said they were safe. The staff team were well trained and had good support from the registered manager and senior staff. They were confident in reporting any concerns about a person’s safety and were competent to deliver the care and support people needed.
Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. Written plans were in place to manage these risks. However for one person an assessment had not been updated following alterations at their home.
The management team used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys and care reviews. Overall satisfaction with the service was found to be positive. However, some audits had not identified shortfalls to ensure lessons could be learnt to improve the service.
The people we spoke with expressed positive views about the service and spoke highly of staff and the registered manager. People were consulted about their care, needs and wishes. Where people lacked the capacity to consent, policies and procedures were in place in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had an understanding of the requirements of the MCA and had received training on the subject.
Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People were involved in making decisions about their care. People told us they liked the staff and looked forward to the staff coming to their homes.
When meeting with people in their own homes we saw staff treating people with respect and providing assistance in a kind and caring manner. It was evident that people and staff members had cordial and friendly relationships.
Care records provided information to direct staff to deliver people’s care and support safely. Records had been kept under review so information reflected the current and changing needs of people.
Staff had a good understanding of people’s daily care needs and, where necessary, ensured that people who used the service had access to community health care and support. Health and social care professionals we spoke with gave positive feedback about the service and felt staff were professional and cooperative.