The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Agincare UK Salisbury

Units 21 & 22 Norton Enterprise Park, Whittle Road, Churchfields Industrial Estate, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP2 7YS (01722) 323302

Provided and run by:
Agincare UK Limited

All Inspections

9 January 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

Shortly before our inspection, we received some information of concern which indicated a person's support was cancelled at very short notice. The manager and senior management were aware of the concerns and an investigation was being undertaken in line with the agency's complaint procedure.

The Swindon branch of Agincare UK merged with the Salisbury branch earlier this year. Before the merger, some people who used the Swindon branch were experiencing difficulties with missed calls. This meant people did not receive consistent support and their needs were not being met effectively. We issued a warning notice to ensure improvements were made. The closure of the Swindon branch soon afterwards, meant the warning notice was no longer applicable.

The manager told us there were a number of challenges at the time of the merger. They said they noted at an early stage, the systems used at the Swindon branch were not fully effective, so problems were arising. The manager told us a full review was undertaken and systems were brought in line with the operation of the Salisbury branch. As a result, the manager said the problem with missed calls was immediately resolved.

In order to gain feedback about people's experiences, we spoke with seven people who used the service, five staff members and one relative. There were a range of positive comments about staff and the overall service provided. One person told us there had been significant improvements since the merger of the two branches. They said this particularly applied to the reliability and standard of the service received.

People told us carers were caring, friendly, reliable and professional. The office staff were described as approachable, supportive and understanding. People told us carers arrived to support them on time and completed what was required. They said they usually received the same carers, which gave consistency and enabled positive relationships to be built.

People were clear about how they would raise a concern or make a complaint. They said they would generally call the office to discuss any issues. People were confident they would be listened to and their concerns would be satisfactorily addressed.

16 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection was carried out to follow up on the areas of non-compliance we identified at our previous inspection. The provider sent us an action plan outlining planned improvements and when they would be implemented. We visited the service in April 2013 to check that these had been implemented. We spoke with five people who used the service or their relatives, five members of staff, and the manager. We also reviewed five people's care documentation.

We spoke with five people who used the service and they told us that their needs were met and staff were respectful and caring toward them or their relative. One person told us 'the care I receive from the agency is absolutely A1, I cannot fault it'.

People using the service told us they felt safe when staff visited them and they had been able to trust them over long periods of time.

Staff told us they felt fully supported by their manager and that the training they undertook was very helpful to their roles.

People's personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose.

4 May 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke to one person about the way the agency delivered personal care and we observed the way staff engaged with another person.

We spoke to three people in their own homes about the agency. We contacted three relatives and family carers by phone to discuss their experiences of the care provided by agency staff.

One person that used the agency and the two of the three relatives we spoke with told us they had not been provided with written information about the way the agency operated. One relative said they did not have the contact details for the agency and they were not aware of key policies for example, the complaints procedure.

The people we asked about making complaints told us they would contact the agency and raise concerns. Two relatives told us about the complaints they had raised and the actions the manager had taken to resolve them.

When we asked people about the way staff respected their rights to privacy and dignity, they gave us examples of how staff ensured their rights were respected. Relatives confirmed staff respected the rights of people and were able to give us examples of this.

People told us that staff knew how to meet their needs. We found that not all care plans were up to date. One main carer told us that their relative's needs had changed since the development of the care plan which had not been updated to reflect those changes.

People told us that staff never missed their visits, but they were sometimes late. Relatives confirmed visits were never missed and 'the traffic or parking' were the reasons given for being late.

We asked people if they felt safe and they told us that they felt they were kept safe by the staff when they were caring for them. Family carers said their relatives did not feel vulnerable when agency staff were providing personal care.