Surrey Downs Homecare Ltd

“We identified 5 breaches of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding people from abuse and neglect, consent, person-centred care, notification of other incidents and good governance.”

“We found people were not always receiving safe care, which placed them at greater risk of harm or deteriorating health. Risks were not recorded in people’s care plans and risk assessments were not in place where people had complex health or care needs. There was a lack of detailed records about people’s health and care needs, and an absence of guidance to inform staff how to provide care safely.”

“Documentation on how staff should support people was unavailable, and records of care did not clearly evidence how people were being supported in a way that met their needs or reflected best practices, including management of medicines and incidents. For example, staff were applying prescribed creams on people, but there was no guidance available for staff to know where and how to do this. Furthermore, no medicines administration records were in place.”

“People were not always protected from harm or abuse. Incidents indicating possible harm such as unaccounted for bruises or injuries sustained during falls, were not investigated, followed up, reported or learned from. Safeguarding incidents were not always appropriately reported to the local authority or CQC in line with the provider’s legal responsibilities.”

“The provider did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and did not always seek relevant authorisations where restrictions on people’s liberty were in place.”

“Governance and quality monitoring of people’s care, undertaken by the provider were ineffective. Audits had failed to identify any areas for improvements.”

“There were sufficient staff deployed to ensure people had their needs met safely. Overall people were happy with their care, found the care workers to be kind and caring, and said they arrived on time and stayed the full allocated time. The staff’s feedback indicated they were trained and supervised regularly, had the opportunity to raise concerns and felt supported by the management.”