Alcedo Care Preston

Updated 5 November 2021

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 conducted by an 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 two managers 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

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we wanted to be sure the registered managers would be available to speak with us. Inspection activity started on 21 September 2021 and ended on 4 October 2021. We visited the office location on 21 September 2021 and 27 September 2021.

What we did before the inspection

We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We reviewed information we had received about the service since the service had been registered with us. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We spoke with eight people who used the service and two relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with nine members of staff including the two registered managers, the company compliance manager, care coordinator and care workers. We reviewed a range of records. This included nine people’s care records and medication records. We looked at seven 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 5 November 2021

About the service

Alcedo Care Preston provides home care services enabling people to be cared for while living their own homes. The service is managed from the registered office in Preston and services are provided to people living in parts of Lancashire. At the time of this inspection 102 people were receiving care and support from 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

More than half the people we spoke with told us they had experienced problems with the consistency of their visit times. Where people had late visits, these were investigated by the registered manager. Some staff told us they did struggle at times to maintain consistent visit times due to a variety of reasons including travel distance between people’s homes not being calculated in their rota’s. The provider had recognised people were unhappy and implemented a standby/rapid response team specifically to respond to late visits and/or staffing issues.

We have made a recommendation that the provider reviews their systems in order to provide consistent visits times.

There were systems in place to assess the quality and safety of the service. However, some quality monitoring records we looked at had not always been completed in their entirety. This meant the oversight of quality monitoring information was not always meaningful.

We have made a recommendation that the provider ensures quality monitoring systems used are consistently completed.

Staff supported people to take their medicines as they had been prescribed. People's needs had been assessed and people received the level of support they required. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm. Lessons were learned from any incidents to maintain and improve the safety of the service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We were assured the infection prevention and control practises were satisfactory. Staff were trained and their competencies had been checked to ensure they could provide appropriate care. The staff supported people as they needed when preparing their meals and drinks. Staff identified if people required medical assistance and supported them to access appropriate healthcare services.

People made decisions about their care and their rights were protected. 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.

People told us the staff treated them with respect and dignity and were kind and caring towards them. People were regularly asked for their views about their care and the service they received. People's care plans were written in a person-centred way that took account of their preferences. The provider had an effective procedure for receiving and managing complaints about the service. People had received the support they needed at the end of their lives and families were complimentary about the support that had been given.

The registered managers and staff team worked closely with other agencies and healthcare professionals to make sure people received good care. The provider and registered managers understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and received regular support and supervision.

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

This service was registered with us on 8 July 2020 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about visit times. We have found some evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this report. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.