Archived: Somerset Care Community (Mendip)

Updated 15 November 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 30 and 31 August 2017. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available for the inspection. It also allowed us to arrange to visit people receiving a service in their own homes.

The last inspection of the service was carried out in February and March 2015. No concerns were identified with the care being provided to people at that inspection, however due to low staff numbers people experienced a lack of consistency with staff provided. We looked at how the provider had improved this part of their service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a 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 the information in the PIR and also looked at other information we held about the service before the inspection visit.

This inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and two experts by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses or has used this type of care service.

Somerset Care Community (Mendip) provides personal care to people living in the towns and villages in the Mendip area. At the time of this inspection they were providing personal care for 176 people. They also provided a domestic service to people living in their own homes.

We visited five people in their homes and met two relatives; we also spoke with 23 people and two relatives over the telephone. We spoke with four staff members as well as the manager and the regional operations manager.

We looked at records which related to people’s individual care and the running of the service. Records seen included six care and support plans, quality audits and action plans, three staff recruitment files and records of meetings and staff training.

Updated 15 November 2017

This inspection took place on 30 and 31 August 2017. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available for the inspection. It also allowed us to arrange to visit people receiving a service in their own homes.

Somerset Care Community (Mendip) provides personal care to people living in the towns and villages in the Mendip area. At the time of this inspection they were providing personal care for 176 people. They also provided a domestic service to people living in their own homes.

There was not a registered manager in post. A registered manager 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. We discussed the need for the service to have a registered manager with the regional operations manager. They agreed the manager in post at the time of the inspection would submit an application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). On the second day of the inspection we saw a confirmation message from CQC that the manager’s application to register had been submitted.

The last inspection of the service was carried out in February and March 2015. At that inspection we found due to low staffing levels people experienced a lack of consistency with regular staff. At this inspection we found there had been an improvement in staffing levels and the consistency of care workers visiting people. Some people told us they had seen an improvement and the manager confirmed they were still working to ensure people received care and support from a consistent team of staff.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

The service continued to provide safe care and support for people. There were adequate numbers of staff to provide the care and support people needed. However, there were mixed comments on staff arriving punctually at the time visits were due. Most people said there had been an issue in the past but it had improved and staff were arriving on time. However, a few people said they still experienced staff arriving later than the time they had been informed they would arrive. The manager had put systems in place to improve this experience for people which were on-going.

People were protected from abuse because the provider had systems in place to ensure checks of new staff and their suitability to work with vulnerable adults were carried out. Staff had also received training in protecting vulnerable people from abuse. People said they felt safe when being cared for; we observed people were happy and relaxed with care workers during our home visits.

The service continued to provide effective care and support. People were supported by staff who had a clear knowledge and understanding of their personal needs, likes and dislikes. We observed staff took time to talk with people during our home visits. However, people had mixed opinions about the consistency of the staff team visiting them. Most people said they had a regular team of staff who they knew and had built relationships with, whilst others said they had met a number of different staff members. The manager confirmed an on-going staff recruitment programme meant they were now able to provide people with a more consistent team of staff.

The service continued to provide care workers who were caring and compassionate. People told us the care workers were kind, caring and often went above and beyond what was expected of them. We observed very caring interactions during home visits and every visit was accompanied with cheerful banter.

The service had improved their rating in responsive to good. People’s care needs were recorded and reviewed regularly with team leaders and the person receiving the care or a relevant representative. All care plans included written consent to the care provided. Care workers had comprehensive information and guidance in care plans to enable them to deliver consistent care the way people preferred. People told us they or a relative had been involved in drawing up a care plan and they also confirmed the care plan was reviewed regularly with them. Records showed the service responded to concerns and complaints and learnt from the issues raised.

The service continued to be well led. There were systems in place to monitor the care provided and people’s views and opinions were sought through care reviews and an annual survey. Suggestions for change were listened to and actions taken where possible to improve the service provided. All incidents and accidents were monitored, trends identified and learning shared with staff to put into practice.