EBS Instant Care LTD

Updated 19 July 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by 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.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was announced.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

In planning our inspection, we reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included any notifications (events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about).

The registered provider had completed a 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. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

In addition, we considered our last CQC inspection report and information that had been sent to us by other agencies such as commissioners who had a contract with the service.

We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We spoke with four people who used the service and one relative about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with seven members of staff including the providers representative, the registered manager, senior care workers, care workers, office administration and a care coordinator.

We reviewed a range of records. This included five people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at four staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection –

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.

Updated 19 July 2019

About the service

EBS instant care is a Domiciliary care agency providing personal care to 12 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 15 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were not always protected in a safe way as risk to their health and wellbeing was not managed appropriately. People received their medicines as prescribed, but Medication Administration Records were not always completed correctly. People and their families felt safe with the staff that cared for them. Safeguarding systems were in place. Recruitment processes were robust enough to ensure people employed were safe to work with the people who used the service. People were protected from cross contamination because staff followed infection control policy and procedures.

People’s needs were assessed, but care plans did not always contain the detail required for staff to support people effectively. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; but this was not always recorded correctly. Staff received training but were not fully supported to ensure they had the confidence, skills, and knowledge they needed to perform their roles effectively. People’s dietary requirements were recorded, and they were supported with their meals. People were supported to access other healthcare professionals.

Staff treated people with kindness and their dignity and privacy was respected. People had an opportunity to discuss their care and support on a regular basis. Advocate support was acquired if people needed support to express their views. People were shown respect and their dignity was protected.

Systems to monitor complaints were in place, but not always dealt with in a timely manner. Care plans were reviewed but not always up dated to reflect people’s current needs. Call times were unpredictable. People’s wishes at the End of Life had not been fully explored.

Management of the service was disorganised. The provider did not always submit notifications to CQC. The providers monitoring systems were not robust to identify and manage all risks. The last CQC rating of the service was displayed appropriately.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (Published 20 October 2017)

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about assessing risk and the way the service was run. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk