# Amber Valley Total Care *Operated by Amber Valley Total Care Ltd.* Amber Valley Total Care is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Ilkeston. ## CQC Ratings | Key question | Rating | | --- | --- | | Overall | Inadequate | | Safe | Inadequate | | Effective | Requires improvement | | Caring | Requires improvement | | Responsive | Requires improvement | | Well-led | Inadequate | Rating published: 21/03/2024 ## Practical info - Postcode: DE7 6EE - Registered manager: Colledge, Cheryl - Local authority: Derbyshire - Region: East Midlands - City: Ilkeston - Last CQC check: 21/Mar/2024 - 00:00 ## Inspection findings ### effective - Finding - Staff support: induction, training, skills and experience - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely care - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the law - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidance - Published: 2024-06-06 ### Other - Finding - Evidence: People had the opportunity to provide feedback and formal complaints were investigated. - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Evidence: The provider worked with other healthcare professionals, including district nursing teams, receiving positive feedback. - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Evidence: There were enough staff to meet people's needs, with cover available for missed calls. - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Evidence: Staff followed infection control policies and used PPE effectively. - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Evidence: Staff received appropriate training, induction and felt confident working independently. - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Evidence: People felt safe receiving support from care staff and spoke highly of carers. - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Evidence: Staff completed safeguarding training and had awareness and understanding of abuse, knowing how to report safeguarding concerns. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **supervision_appraisal** _(minor)_ - Evidence: Some staff felt supervisions were helpful and a safe space to discuss any concerns. Others felt they were not well supported by the manager and did not feel comfortable raising issues. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **person_centred_care** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: One person requested to be supported by female staff only, but this was not recorded in their care plan. We saw that on one occasion this person's request was not accommodated. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **record_keeping** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: Staff used a communication portal to share concerns about people's health and wellbeing, however we saw no evidence that the provider took any actions to follow up on the concerns. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **leadership** _(moderate)_ - Evidence: One staff member said, 'The [registered] manager is rough with us. The management style is very outdated, they don't listen to staff'. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **incident_learning** _(critical)_ - Evidence: There was a lack of evidence to show the provider had processes in place to learn from events. The issues identified at the previous inspection were still not addressed at this inspection. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **consent_capacity** _(critical)_ - Evidence: People had mental capacity assessments but they were not completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice. There were no best interest decisions in place for people who lacked capacity. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **governance** _(critical)_ - Evidence: The provider's auditing processes were ineffective and did not identify any of the shortfalls found during our inspection. Care plan audits did not identify the lack of information recorded in 9 different care plans. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **staffing_levels** _(critical)_ - Evidence: We found 8 recruitment files of staff employed at the service that did not include checks with the Barring Service. This meant people were at risk of receiving care from unsuitable staff. - Published: 2024-06-06 - **medication_management** _(critical)_ - Evidence: There was no guidance in place for people who were prescribed 'as and when required' medicines and staff did not record the dose administered. - Published: 2024-06-06 ### safe - Finding - Preventing and controlling infection - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuse - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Staffing and recruitment - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Learning lessons when things go wrong - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Using medicines safely - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Assessing risk, safety monitoring and management - Published: 2024-06-06 ### well_led - Finding - Working in partnership with others - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candour - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering - Published: 2024-06-06 - Finding - Managers and staff being clear about their roles, quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements - Published: 2024-06-06 ## Source Data published by the [Care Quality Commission](https://www.cqc.org.uk/) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Canonical page: https://homecarecompass.co.uk/agency/1-3148378144 HomeCare Compass is an independent guide and is not affiliated with the CQC.