Inspectors’ concerns about provider’s service Watchdog orders care improvements

A care provider supporting vulnerable people in their own homes has been ordered to improve.

Inspections were carried out at Expertise Homecare Canterbury and Coastal - now called Pure Life Homecare - by the Care Quality Commission after concerns were raised by a member of the public about the standard of care and support it provides.

Joanna Mitchell, who manages the service from the Canterbury Innovation Centre, was criticised by inspectors for the way she recruits staff and for not taking necessary steps to keep people safe.

In their damning report, inspectors refer to an incident in which a person had fallen out of bed and was diagnosed with an infection associated with being dehydrated.

“Although a review of the person’s care was scheduled for the following week, the resulting care plan did not include any information for staff to follow to help ensure the person was hydrated enough in the future,” a spokesman for the government watchdog said.

When another person was found on the floor and declined medical attention, there was no record of any investigation to determine how they fell or steps to be taken to reduce the chance of them falling again.

Inspectors also found people’s care plans did not always contain detail about their needs or preferences, including how they wished to be supported at the end of their lives and who to contact first when they died.

Information gathered for care planning was also deemed insufficient.

In one example, they found an assessment for a bed-bound person - who was entirely dependent on others for their nutrition, hydration and personal care and also at risk of choking - that stated there were “no risks”.

Ms Mitchell also came under fire for failing to take timely measures to respond to complaints.

“We saw records showing one relative had made a formal complaint in January 2018,” explained the CQC spokesman in the report.

“They expressed some serious concerns about the poor standard of care provided by staff, and the manner by which senior staff had responded to those concerns when they had been raised informally.

“We were concerned to find that although there had been some communication between the registered provider and the complainant in the meantime, the complaint had remained unresolved almost ten months later.

“This had caused the complainant and the person receiving support significant distress.”

During the investigation, inspectors visited three people in their own homes, spoke to two people and five relatives over the telephone, and visited the office to meet Ms Mitchell and other staff.

The service, which cares for mainly older adults, some with dementia and complex health conditions, was given a ‘requires improvement’ rating overall, but received a ‘good’ grading in the caring category.

Inspectors praised some areas, including how staff and Ms Mitchell dealt with a person at risk of self-harming as well as the training given to staff.

The company was approached for a comment, but did not respond.

‘We were concerned to find the complaint remained unresolved almost ten months later, causing distress’