Archived: Allied Healthcare - Ampthill

Updated 18 January 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.

The inspection took place at the offices of the service on 25 November, 6 December and 8 December 2016. The inspection was unannounced on the first day but announced on the second and third day. The inspection team was made up of one inspector, who visited the offices of the service, 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. The inspector and the expert by experience carried out telephone interviews with people who used the service, relatives of people who used the service and care staff between the inspector’s first and second visit to the offices.

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 also sent 50 questionnaires to people who used the service, 50 to relatives of people who used the service and five to community professionals to inform us of any areas that we needed to specifically look at when carrying out the inspection. We received 19 responses from people who used the service, two responses from relatives of people who used the service and one response from a community professional. We also reviewed the information available to us, such as notifications and information provided by the public or staff. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

During this inspection we spoke with 12 people and six relatives of people who used the service. We spoke with three care staff, a care scheduler, a care quality supervisor, two care delivery managers, the regional training officer and the registered manager. We looked at the care and visits records for 10 people and the recruitment records for three members of staff. We reviewed records of visits made to people and staffing rotas. We also reviewed information on how the quality of the service was monitored and managed, including the management of complaints and the emergency plans.

Updated 18 January 2017

The inspection took place over three days and was initially unannounced. The service provides personal care and support in people’s homes. At the time of the inspection there were 301 people who used the service.

There was 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. The registered manager had a more regional role within the provider’s organisation and was the registered manager for a number of the provider’s services. Day to day management of the Ampthill service was carried out by two care delivery managers. The registered manager retained oversight of the service.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which included ones on safeguarding, whistleblowing and implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were protected from the risk of harm by effective assessment and management plans to reduce the risks to them. These covered both personal risks to people and environmental risks. There were plans in place for emergencies that might occur and the service operated an ‘on call’ system that meant that people could contact them on a 24 hour basis.

Robust recruitment and selection processes were in place and the provider had taken steps to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people who used the service. Staff were trained and supported by way of supervisions, appraisals and regular audits of the way in which they delivered care. Staff were provided with specialist training when this was needed to provide care for people. Where the service had been unable to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of staff in a certain geographical area to provide the care people needed, they had worked with the local authority to find alternative care providers for people in that area.

People had been involved in determining their support needs and the way in which their support was to be delivered. Their consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were met. They were treated with dignity and respect by staff who were kind and caring. People were encouraged to make choices of their own and to maintain their independence.

People and their relatives had been involved in deciding what support they were to receive and how this was to be given. Relatives were involved in the regular review of people’s support needs and were kept informed of any changes to a person’s health or well-being.

There was an up to date complaints policy in place and a copy of the complaints system was included in the folder kept at people’s home, which also included other information about the service.

There was an open culture and staff were supported by the care delivery managers and the registered manager. Regular quality audits were completed by the care quality staff and any areas for improvement were addressed with individual members of staff by the care delivery managers.