Mrs Nina Glarvey

Mrs Nina Glarvey is a domiciliary care agency providing the regulated activity of personal care to people who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people using the service.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

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

Recruitment processes were in place; however, not entirely robust. We have made a recommendation about this.

Procedures to keep staff safe in their work were not always in place. Staff meetings were not taking place on a regular basis and documentation of any meetings was not kept. Training records and training development plans were not up to date. Supervisions were not taking place regularly in line with the company policy.

People's feedback of the service was positive. People were supported with their medication and staff were trained in this. People had person-centred care plans in place which considered their preferences.

Risks to people and staff had been assessed with appropriate measures in place to help protect them. The registered manager had oversight of processes to monitor the safety of people and staff.

People told us staff always maintained their dignity and privacy when providing care.

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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 28 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Mrs Nina Glarvey on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Recommendations

We recommend the provider reviews their recruitment procedures to ensure records demonstrate best practice guidance. At the time of inspection, best practice guidance was not followed, and this was not identified by the provider. We recommend the provider reviews their recruitment procedures and improves their governance system to include audit processes and training and supervision records and takes actions to ensure they demonstrate best practice. The provider has taken action to amend practices since the inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

There was a registered person in place. A registered person who is an individual who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

This was the first inspection of the service at this location. The registered provider had moved offices since our last inspection visit. At this inspection visit we found all fundamental standards had been met.

People spoke positively about the quality of service provision on offer. Staff were described as caring and kind. People valued the relationships they had developed with their staff team.

Arrangements were in place to protect people from risk of abuse. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were aware of their responsibilities for reporting any concerns.

People told us that on the whole staffing arrangements were good. They said staff were reliable and always carried out the commissioned hours.

People who had regular carers told us they had developed positive relationships with staff and this enabled them to feel safe.

Care plans were in place for people who used the service. Care plans covered support needs and personal wishes. People told us they were involved in planning their own service which enabled them to receive individualised support.

The service had systems in place to monitor and manage risks. However, we found these were not always fully documented. We raised this with the registered person who took immediate action to ensure all risks were fully documented. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff told us the service was a good place to work. They praised the management and the way in which the service was run. They told us communication was good and described the managers as caring and approachable. Staff told us they were provided with training which supported them to carry out tasks proficiently.

Staff were positive about ways in which the service was managed. They described the working culture as positive and said team work was good.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure checks were made on staff prior to them starting work. This allowed the service to check people’s suitability for working with vulnerable people.

Suitable arrangements were in place for managing and administering medicines for people who required support with this.

People’s healthcare needs were met by the service. We saw evidence of partnership working with other healthcare professionals. When people required support with eating and drinking we saw appropriate records were maintained.

Staff who worked for the service had an understanding of the Mental Capacity. When people lacked capacity the service worked with other professionals to ensure capacity was assessed and appropriate systems were implemented.

The service was committed to ensuring person centred care was delivered and achieved. We saw evidence of regular consultation with people who used the service about their preferences and needs. The registered provider was working to ensure communication for people who used the service was fully accessible.

People told us whenever they had concerns and complaints they felt they could discuss them with the senior management team and were assured they would be dealt with efficiently and effectively.

The registered provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure safe, effective and responsive care was provided.