Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Audrey Burton House, Harrogate.

Audrey Burton House in Harrogate is a Homecare agencies specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia, learning disabilities, personal care and physical disabilities. The last inspection date here was 8th February 2020

Audrey Burton House is managed by Deeper Care Solutions Ltd.

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Requires Improvement
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-02-08
    Last Published 2018-11-09

Local Authority:

    North Yorkshire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

22nd August 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place between 22 August and 5 September 2018. We informed the provider of our visit to the agency office on the first day so they could plan for us to meet with people using the service and speak with staff.

Deeper Care Solutions Ltd Harrogate is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. The service can support older people, younger adults and people who may be living with a physical disability, dementia, a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder.

Not everyone using Deeper Care Solutions receives a regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service was being provided to 32 older people or people living with dementia.

No one with a learning disability was using the service. Therefore, we have not assessed whether the care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance at this inspection. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. We will look at this aspect of the service at our next inspection.

At the last inspection on 27 July 2017 there was a breach of regulation regarding the governance of the service. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions safe and well led to at least good.

At this inspection effective management systems and processes to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were not fully established. We identified a continuing breach of Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had not ensured staff were trained and supported to carry out their roles effectively. This was a breach of Regulation 18(2)(a) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

This is the second consecutive time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

The service was jointly run by the directors of Deeper Care Solutions Ltd, one of whom was the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Staff inconsistency, poor timekeeping and lack of communication had impacted upon the quality of care people received throughout the service. Since the last inspection the service had increased the number of people for whom they were providing care. They were also supporting people with an increasing level of dependency through the ‘Fast Track’ assessment process for people with a primary health need approaching the end of their life. We found staff sometimes provided this level of care without appropriate care needs assessments in place. Care planning and risk assessment documentation was generic and did not provide staff with sufficient guidance to deliver person-centred care. This placed people at risk because people were not always provided with a consistent team of care staff. We have arranged to meet with commissioners of the service and the provider to discuss the required improvements.

Audits were not being effectively used to identify patterns or trends, prevent re-occurrences and drive improvement. We found similar issues to those identified

27th July 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

18 Hambleton Road is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The provider of the service is Deeper Care Solutions Ltd and 18 Hambleton Road is the provider's only location. The service can support older people, younger adults and people who may be living with a physical disability, dementia, a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The service supports people who live in and around Harrogate.

We inspected this service on 27 July 2017. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection, because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the location offices when we visited. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing care and support to seven older people or people living with dementia.

At our last inspection of the service in July 2015 we rated the service ‘Good’.

The service was jointly run by the directors of Deeper Care Solutions Ltd, one of whom was the nominated individual and had recently completed an application and become the registered manager. We have referred to the registered manager as 'manager' throughout our report. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 found that improvements were required to ensure the service was safe. We identified that detailed care plans and risk assessments were not in place to ensure staff provided safe care and support to a person who used the service and around the management of medicines. We found gaps on Medication Administration Records (MARs) so could not be certain people had received their prescribed medicines. The provider’s audits had not identified and addressed the issues we found. We received mixed feedback about staff’s punctuality and found evidence that staffing levels had impacted on the provider’s ability to provide care and support at people’s preferred times. Accidents and incidents were not analysed to identify patterns or trends and prevent similar re-occurrences.

We found records were not always well-maintained. This included recruitment records, MARs, observation records and documentation around people’s mental capacity and with regards to best interest decisions. The provider’s quality assurance systems had not identified or resolved these issues.

This was a breach of regulation regarding the governance of the service. You can see what action we told the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Despite these concerns, people who used the service told us they felt safe. Staff understood their responsibility to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns.

Staff received ongoing training and support in their role. Supervisions and appraisals were completed. Staff supported people to ensure they ate and drank enough and to access healthcare services where necessary. Consent to care was considered and staff were mindful of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 although clear and complete records had not been maintained. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not been documented and the provider had not explored whether powers of attorney were in place. We have made a recommendation about this is in the body of our report.

Staff were generally described as kind and caring. Staff supported people to maintain their independence and we received positive feedback about how staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Care plans contained person-centred information about people’s needs. People told us staff were responsive and provided support which met their needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated and th

20th August 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People spoke positively about the care they received and about their care workers. People said they knew who to speak to if they had any worries or concerns and were confident that action would be taken if they raised any issues. One person said “I always feel safe with the carers.”

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were always respected.

Effective management systems were not always in place to make sure the manager and staff learned from events such as analysing accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and investigations. The service had completed individual comprehensive risk assessments for the environment and people’s physical and mental health. However the agency had no monitoring systems in place to check and ensure that the people they provided care to were safe.

People we spoke with confirmed they received their medication as prescribed. Some people told us that they could administer their own medication safely with minimal support from staff. However there were no audits being carried out to check that people received their medication safely.

Is the service effective?

People told us that carers asked them about everything and sought their permission. People's files we looked at contained consent from people before they received a service.

People we spoke with confirmed they had a care plan in their home, which was followed by carers when they visited. People did not know if their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs. One person said “They (carers) are all very good indeed.”

Some staff had not received training to meet the needs of the people they support in the community. This was because training for some staff including mandatory training such as first aid, moving and handling and safeguarding was out of date.This meant that people could potentially be put at risk because staff did not have appropriate training.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the management from the agency.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us that they were well supported by the service. We asked them for their views about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was very positive. We spoke with seven people who were using the service and two relatives who had relatives using the service.

Everyone we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care they received and spoke positively about individual care workers. People described carers as being ‘professional and very kind’. People said “They (carers) are all really, really nice. They (carers) are helpful, understanding and caring.” Another person told us, "I can’t say a bad word about them. I like to have a joke with them. They do everything that I ask them to do” and “The carers are all very pleasant and amicable, friendly and kind.”

Is the service responsive?

People told us their care workers generally arrived on time and they stayed for the correct length of time that had been agreed. When carers were running late people told us that they would phone to let them know.

People told us if they had any problems they would contact the senior person in charge or the manager who would make sure any issues were sorted out. People said whenever possible they were kept informed about any changes to the usual care workers who attended to them.

People we spoke with told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Everyone we spoke with told us they would ring the agency office. People also told us that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary. One person said “I would ring the office and X would sort it out.”

People were not given the opportunity to share their views about the agency.

Is the service well-led?

People we spoke with told us that the service they received from the agency was good and the carers were ‘very caring’.

We saw that there was not an effective and robust quality assurance system in place which meant that the service was learning from any audits to make continuous improvements at the service.

Effective management systems were not always in place to promote and safeguard people's safety and welfare. This was because the agency did not regularly support the staff team through regular one to one supervisions, appraisals, staff meetings and the necessary training of staff to ensure current and best practice was being followed. The registered manager of the service was absent and CQC had not been notified of this absence as required. We have asked for further information about this issue.

16th April 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People told us that they were able to make choices and decisions regarding their care and were treated with dignity and respect. Comments include "Staff are always polite and friendly and I am treated with respect and kindness."

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We saw on the care records that each person had an individual care and support agreement and a range of supporting documentation including risk assessments and a clear list of what care and support was required at each visit. One person told us "They make sure I have everything I need."

People told us that the care was of a good standard and that in the main staff arrived on time. Comments included, "The agency are flexible and staff seem competent and friendly."

The agency had clear systems in place for supporting people with medication and staff were trained in the safe handling of medicines.

We saw that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. The files contained the relevant pre-employment checks which included application form, interview record, references, police checks and authorisation to work in the United Kingdom, where necessary.

The provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This included checks undertaken by the manager at the agency whilst staff were providing support in peoples homes.

1st January 1970 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

The inspection visit to the domiciliary agency care office was carried out on 3 July 2015. Telephone contact was made with people using the service and staff on 5 and 6 July 2015, this included weekend and evening calls in order to catch people in. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available.

18 Hambleton Road is a domiciliary care agency which is owned by Deeper Care Solutions. It is owned by an individual, Pelagia Mujawo. The agency is registered to provide personal care and support for people who wish to remain in their own homes and is based in Harrogate, North Yorkshire. People using the service live in Harrogate and surrounding areas.

We last inspected this service on 20 August 2014 where we found there were shortfalls in the way staff were trained and supervised and there were no systems in place to monitor and asses the quality of the services provided. The provider sent us an action plan which stated they would make the necessary improvements before 20 September 2014. We found improvements had been made at this inspection.

At the time of this visit the agency was supporting fourteen people with personal care and employed five care assistants. The agency also employs a client liaison manager and there was a registered manager in place. 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.

Care and support was provided to people in their own home and in accordance with their needs. People who received care and support from the agency and their relatives provided us with positive feedback. They told us the service was reliable and that staff were caring, kind and respectful. People told us they felt safe in the way staff supported them and that they trusted the staff who visited them.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare had been assessed and information about how to support people to manage risks was recorded in people's plan of care. We looked at the records held in the agency office, and were told that these were duplicated in the persons home, reflecting any changes or up to date information.

People who used the service received support from a ‘core’ staff team and staff were matched to people with the same interests to help build positive relationships. Sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people’s needs, for example, some people required two care assistants to help with their moving and handling or personal care needs.

Recruitment checks were in place. These checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. The training programme provided staff with the knowledge and skills to support people. We saw systems were in place to provide staff support. This included staff meetings, supervisions and an annual appraisal. The agency had a whistleblowing policy, which was available to staff. Staff told us they would not hesitate in using it and felt confident that appropriate action would be taken if they raised concerns.

Some of the people who used the service were supported with taking their prescribed medication and staff told us they were trained and competent to assist people with this.

Staff had received relevant training which was targeted and focussed on improving outcomes for people who used the service. This helped to ensure that the staff had a good balance of skills, knowledge and experience to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff had regular contact with other healthcare professionals at the appropriate time to help monitor and maintain people’s health and wellbeing. People were provided with care and support according to their assessed need.

People gave consent to their plan of care and were involved in making decisions about their support. People’s plan of care was subject to review to meet their changing needs. People received effective care that met their individual needs. Staff told us they felt well informed about people’s needs and how to meet them. The plans of care we reviewed were very detailed and included information which was specific to the person featured, for example, which linen to use on their bed, what colour towels to use when assisting with bathing or how someone preferred their meals serving.

The manager had a clear knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and their roles and responsibilities linked to this. They were able to explain how they would ensure a decision was made in a person’s best interests, if this was required and the service worked alongside other health and social care professionals and family members. This helped to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests.

Staff we spoke with told us how much they enjoyed their work and that they were committed to providing an excellent service for people. Systems and processes were in place to monitor the

service and make improvements where they could. This included internal audits and regular contact with people using the service to check they were satisfied with their continuing care packages.

People's views had been sought through the use of questionnaires in 2014 and this was due to be repeated as the provider did this on an annual basis. The overall feedback we received about the management of the service was very positive.

 

 

Latest Additions: