A care provider in Pocklington has been told it must improve following its recent Care Quality Commission report.
Care Support Force Limited, in George Street received a “requires improvement” rating in four of the five measures including being safe, effective, caring and responsive.
The service was also told it was “inadequate” under the inspection measure “well-led”.
The inspection, which was carrried out on October 27, November 7 and 14, 2016, identified “concerns about late and missed visits from staff”.
The report also states: “We found evidence that staff did not consistently stay for the agreed length of time at each visit due to staff shortages.
“People we spoke with told us there had been a high turnover of staff and raised concerns about the skills, knowledge and experience of some of the staff employed.”
Members of the eight staff employed were also in need of training.
Four of the eight staff needed health and safety training to be completed or it needed updating. Three of the eight staff needed first aid training, and seven staff had been booked into safeguarding vulnerable adults.
Five staff members had not completed the training and two needed it updating.
After the report was published, Andrew Hart, whose close relative from Pocklington used the services, has raised his fears and concerns.
Mr Hart’s relative used the service from July 2016 to December 2016 when he says they were dismissed because they had made a complaint.
He agreed with the report and had experience with carers being late or missing visits.
He said: “The CQC inspections confirmed that the service as a whole was found wanting in every area and that the management of this home care company was bordering on being seriously negligent.”
The report said: “We found evidence that staff did not consistently stay for the agreed length of time at each visit due to staff shortages.
“We identified concerns about the management of the service and found that effective quality assurance systems were not in place to monitor and improve the service provided.” Jo Whitington, manager, said: “I’d like to draw attention to our previous report and the huge difference between them which does not reflect our ongoing care from our viable company. It’s fair to say I am unhappy with the inspection and their process.”