An Aberdeen-based home care service has improved and met requirements set by the Care Inspectorate since their previous visit, according to the latest report.
Capercaillie Care Ltd, which provides a service to adults in Moray, Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen City and Angus, was branded ‘weak’ by inspectors following a visit on September 27.
The conclusion represented a downgrade from another inspection that was carried out on June 3, when the company’s standard of care was giving an ‘adequate’ rating.
However, on the latest visit – which took place at the beginning of this month – the service was once again given a grade of ‘adequate’.
Requirements met
The report in September listed a series of requirements for Capercaillie Care to meet before it would be considered to have improved, in areas including leadership, the staff team and the support of people’s wellbeing.
In response to the inspectors’ criticism, the company wrote an updated accident and incident policy, changed job descriptions for operational teams, drew up new forms and guidance for staff assessments and planned quality assurance systems for the year ahead.
The action meant each of the requirements in the previous report were met within the allotted timescale.
Referring to the company’s new means of recording incidents, the inspectors said: “The updated system should enable all circumstances and actions around incidents to be easily accessible and understandable, leading to safer support for people.”
They encouraged Capercaillie Care to ensure the new systems and policies were fully embraced for the benefit of staff and the people who use the service.
‘Excellent support’
John Hughes, the manager of Capercaillie Care, said: “We have new area managers in all areas embedding new policies and procedures to ensure high quality care is delivered.
“The improvements in quality have been facilitated by excellent support from the Care Inspectorate and the Local Health and Social Care Partnerships.”
A report about the previous inspection, at which the care service was rated ‘weak’, was mistakenly printed in a recent edition of the Press & Journal. We would like to clarify this article was out of date.