Eniola Care Ltd

At the last inspection the provider had not put in place systems, processes, and training for staff about safeguarding and safeguarding issues had not been recorded or investigated. This was a breach of regulation. The provider remained in breach of regulation. At the last inspection the provider had not put in place systems to make sure that safe care and treatment were consistently provided. There were no risk assessments in place for staff to follow when supporting people. This was a breach of regulation. The provider remained in breach of regulation. At the last inspection the provider had not ensured that staff had the appropriate training and skills to support people safely. Ongoing support for staff was inconsistent relating to supervision meetings. This was a breach of regulation. The provider remained in breach of regulation. At the last inspection the provider had not put in place systems to make sure that medicines were managed safely. There were no PRN protocols or guidance for staff. No risk assessments were in place. Medicine administration records (MAR) had not always been fully completed and there was no guidance for staff supporting people who often forgot to take their medicines. This was a breach of regulation. The provider was still in breach of regulation.

At the last inspection the provider had failed to ensure that staff had training in mental capacity before starting to support people who needed support with decision making. People’s mental capacity had not been assessed appropriately and decisions about people’s best interests had not been made. This was a breach of regulation. Despite an ongoing issue with staff training (see our well-led section below), enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation. People were supported by a staff team that knew them well and understood the importance of consent and providing people who needed support with help with making decisions.

Staff had not always been supported by the service. Expectations were for long hours to be worked and there were issues around payments for holiday leave, expenses for petrol and the receipt of payslips. These issues were in the process of being addressed but the change in management had delayed some of this work and several staff had left the service in the past 4 months. Staff did receive rotas every 2 weeks and knew where they were working and what hours were expected.

There was inconsistency in the content of care plans. Some did not have the ‘about me’, section completed and one person lacked a full care plan. These issues had previously been raised steps to rectify these concerns were being taken by the provider. Care calls were completed on time and there were no reports of late or missed calls. Everyone we spoke with told us about a positive transition between services with the staff liaising appropriately with other professionals when required.

At the last inspection the provider had not put in place effective auditing processes. There was no analysis of patterns or trends or details of actions taken when things were missed. Some accidents and incidents had not been recorded. A phone application with no password protection was used by staff to share sensitive information. There was no effective way of capturing feedback from people, relatives or staff. These failings were a breach of regulation. Although some improvements had been made for example, the phone application was now password protected, not all systems and processes were in place to enable effective auditing and the service remained in breach of regulation. There were ongoing issues relating to auditing processes. Some processes had been put in place but there were more that needed to be captured by managers. For example, analysis of accidents and incidents. Training records had not been kept up to date and records of staff feedback were inconsistent. The provider was aware of their responsibilities to report certain events to the local authority and CQC. The provider had met with staff and provided some reassurances about the future of the service. Positive working relationships had been established with statutory partners and professionals. People’s equality characteristics were respected but the provider was aware that more needed to be done to support staff needs.