Cheshire Homecare Provider Ordered to Improve Following Regulatory Breaches
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) conducted inspections at Cheshire Support Services' registered office in Winsford on April 29 and May 11, revealing multiple regulatory breaches.
By Chester Standard
Cheshire Support Services (CSS), a homecare provider based in Winsford, has been instructed to make improvements after the Care Quality Commission (CQC) identified several regulatory breaches during inspections. The visits to CSS's registered office at Wharton Park House on Nat Lane took place on April 29 and May 11.
CSS is licensed to provide personal care to individuals in their own homes, including the elderly and those living with dementia, learning disabilities, and mental health conditions. Following the inspections, the CQC published a report on July 1, which indicated that CSS had breached regulations related to safe care and treatment, staffing, and governance.
The overall rating for CSS was deemed 'Requires Improvement', with the leadership aspect rated as 'Inadequate'. The CQC noted that CSS acknowledged the need for improvement and responded positively to feedback during the assessment process.
The report highlighted that systems intended to ensure safety were not effectively managed, and care assessments and planning did not consistently adhere to best practice guidelines. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding the recruitment of staff, with insufficient personnel available to handle both emergency and routine tasks.
Inspectors pointed out weaknesses in contingency planning, stating it was not robust enough to guarantee client safety. Issues were also found in medicines management, with some individuals lacking detailed care plans for medication support, and not all staff administering medicines had completed competency assessments as recommended.
The CQC criticized the leadership and oversight of the organisation, stating that leaders had failed to foster a positive and inclusive culture essential for delivering high-quality care. Governance systems were found inadequate in identifying quality and safety issues, hindering timely responses.
Despite these concerns, the report acknowledged some positive aspects of the service. Staff demonstrated knowledge of individuals' care needs and risks, and were able to articulate how they maintained safety and reduced harm. They treated clients with kindness, empathy, and compassion, and understood the importance of obtaining consent before providing care.
Feedback from service users and their relatives was mixed. While some reported good communication with office staff and regular discussions about care needs, others indicated they had not received care reviews for extended periods, or at all. Nevertheless, the report noted that clients and their families appreciated staff's attentiveness to changes in health conditions and adherence to infection control measures.
In conclusion, while service users generally expressed satisfaction with their care, the CQC found that certain aspects of the service did not meet expected standards. Cheshire Support Services has been contacted for comment but has declined to provide a statement.