Archived: Carewatch (Leicester)

Updated 28 March 2017

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 15 and 16 February 2017 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 in.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to our inspection visit we sent out 47 quality questionnaires to people using the service, relatives, and community professionals. Of these we received a total of 17 back, 16 from people using the service and one from a relative. We have used some of our findings in this report.

We reviewed the 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 looked at information received from local authority commissioners. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services for people and fund the care provided. They told us they had no concerns about the service.

We reviewed the provider’s statement of purpose and the notifications we had been sent. A statement of purpose is a document which includes a standard required set of information about a service. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that providers must tell us about.

We spoke with nine people using the service and four relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, the quality officer, and two support workers.

We looked at records relating to all aspects of the service including care, staffing, and quality assurance. We also looked at four people’s care records.

Updated 28 March 2017

This was an announced inspection that took place on 15 and 16 February 2017.

Carewatch (Leicester) is a domiciliary care agency in Leicester that provides care to people in their own home. The service caters for older and younger people in a range of categories: dementia; mental health; physical disability; sensory impairment; eating disorders; and people who misuse drugs and alcohol. The location was registered in February 2016 and this was its first inspection.

At the time of our inspection there were 101 people using the service.

The service has a registered manager. This 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.

During our inspection we received many positive comments from people about the caring approach of the staff. We observed a care worker building a relationship of trust with the person they were supporting. Their kind, friendly and caring manner immediately put the person at ease. Our CQC survey showed that 100% of respondents thought the staff were ‘caring and kind’.

People told us they felt safe using the service. Staff provided safe care and reassurance to people when they needed in. They were trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and knew who to report any concerns to. They checked on people’s well-being and the safety of their home environments to ensure the people they supported were safe. They ensured people had their medicines safely and on time.

Staff had the training they needed to provide people with effective care and support. People said the staff were well-trained and staff said they were satisfied with the training they’d received. We observed a care worker using their training effectively to assist a person to move safely and to take their medicines in a safe way. If staff required specialised training to meet the needs of a particular person this was provided.

People told us staff supported them to eat and drink enough and to choose their meals. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s physical and mental health needs and knew when to contact health professionals, for example GPs and district nurses. People said staff always asked for their consent before providing them with any care or support.

Care plans were personalised and included a section for details about people’s life histories, jobs, families, and hobbies and interests. This gave staff insight into what interested people and helped provide possible topics of conversation. People said staff found the time to converse with them during their calls which they enjoyed. They also said that staff, without exception, respected their privacy and dignity.

People were actively involved in making decisions about their care and support. Care plans informed staff what people wanted from the service, for example, having medication on time, being assisted to mobilise, and receiving timely personal care. Staff followed these and people said they were also willing to be flexible and do things differently if this was wanted. Care plans were reviewed regularly and changes made where necessary.

Some people said their calls were sometimes late and staff at the office didn’t always phone them to let them know there was going to be a delay. The registered manager said she would continue to monitor call times and take action as necessary to ensure that people weren’t keep waiting for staff to arrive. She also said that people should always be informed if staff were running late and she would check to ensure that this was happening.

People told us they would speak out if they had any concerns about the service, or ask someone to speak out for them. Staff were trained in complaints management. If people made a complaint they were given the time and space to discuss their concerns with a representative of the service. Records showed that complaints were logged and the action taken to resolve them. Written compliments were also logged and the service had received eight of these since it was registered.

People told us they thought the service provided good care because of the quality of the staff. Most people we spoke with said they knew who the registered manager was and how to contact her. People also said they were able to contact staff at the service’s office if they needed to. The majority of people we spoke with said they had been asked for their views on the service via questionnaires and during care reviews.

Staff told us they felt well-supported by the registered manager who they said listened to them and the people using the service. They attended regular team meetings and supervision sessions where they had the opportunity to discuss and identify good practice and address any concerns. The registered manager and provider supported and valued staff and rewarded them for delivering high-quality personalised care and support.

The service had a formal quality monitoring system in place. This included an annual internal audit of the service. This helped to ensure the provider had an overview of how well the service was running. Since registration the service had developed and improved in a number of areas including staffing, records keeping, and providing accessible information to the people using the service and relatives.