Royal Mencap Society - Hull Domiciliary Care Agency

Updated 14 November 2018

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 was a comprehensive inspection and took place on 21 August 2018 and 5 September 2018. Both dates were announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure staff were available to speak with us and provide the information we needed. The inspection was completed by one adult social care inspector and an inspection manager.

We contacted the local safeguarding team and Healthwatch prior to the inspection and used their feedback to aid our planning. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We looked at information we held about the provider and the service including statutory notifications relating to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events, which the provider is required to send us. We used this information to help us plan this inspection.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection, we spoke with the registered manager, three service managers, one assistant manager and one area administrator. We looked at three care plans, daily records and monitoring charts, medicine records and two financial care plans. We also looked at information regarding the running of the service which included staff recruitment, induction, training, rotas, policies and procedures, audits and feedback about the service.

After the inspection we visited four people who used the service in their own homes and spoke with two relatives and received feedback from three health and social care professionals.

Updated 14 November 2018

Royal Mencap Society – Hull Domiciliary Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to people with learning disabilities and those with an autistic spectrum disorder. Not everyone using Royal Mencap Society – Hull Domiciliary Care Agency receives a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of the inspection 20 people were receiving a regulated activity.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People continued to be protected from avoidable harm and abuse by staff who were able to identify and follow processes to raise concerns. Staffing levels were safe and recruitment processes helped ensure only suitable people were employed. The provider followed their disciplinary processes appropriately. People were protected from the spread of infection and their medicines were administered safely. Accidents and incidents were analysed to identify patterns and personal information was stored securely.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care and enable people to achieve positive outcomes. Learning and best practice was embedded through supervision and appraisals. People were supported to eat a healthy, varied diet of their choice and were supported to access relevant health care services.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff treated people like family and were kind, caring and passionate about the support they provided. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and they were supported by a regular group of staff that enabled trusting relationships to be built. Staff communicated with people appropriately and valued people as individuals.

People were supported to lead fulfilling lives through going on holiday and pursuing their interests in the local community. Staff challenged discrimination and people were supported to have pain-free, dignified deaths. Policies and procedures were in place to respond and address complaints.

There was an open and honest culture, new ways of working were encouraged and staff were praised for positive work. People and their relatives were included in the development of the service and the provider worked with local community and organisations.

Staff had received specific training though some training dates had lapsed. Care plans were person-centred but information from reviews was not always included in them. Systems were in place to maintain quality in the service, however, these were not being used effectively. We have made a recommendation about this.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.