• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Lifecare Professionals - 11 Burford Road

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Unit 319 Burford Business Centre, 11 Burford Road, London, E15 2ST (020) 8221 4160

Provided and run by:
Lifecare Professionals Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

11 & 18 February 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 11 and 18 February 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice because the location provides domiciliary care and the manager is often supporting staff. We needed to be sure that they would be in. At the last inspection in October 2013 the provider was not compliant with Regulation 18 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 about people's consent to care. The provider was compliant with this regulation at the follow-up inspection in April 2014.

Lifecare Professionals is a domiciliary care agency providing care for 180 people and had 123 staff at the time of this inspection. The service provided home care for adults with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, physical disabilities, older people and people with dementia.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were clear and staff knew the different types of abuse and how to report any concerns they had about people's safety. All staff had received safeguarding training and demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

There were not always sufficient staff to meet people's needs. We saw that during busy periods some staff had worked long hours, seven days per week which put both them and people receiving care at risk of harm.

Staff were well trained and have received core training and had access to additional training to increase their skills. Staff were supported with regular supervision and annual appraisals to maintain the quality of their care.

People were asked for their consent for care to take place. We saw detailed records of people's consent to care, which were signed and dated by people who used the service.

Staff had good caring relationships with people they supported. Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their needs, their backgrounds and made sure they respected people's religious and cultural beliefs.

People were actively involved in their care, and participated in reviews of their care plans and could discuss their care with the registered manager.

Care was responsive to people's needs but was not always properly recorded. Staff knew about people's preferences and how they wanted to receive care. However, care plans did not reflect this and did not contain people's preferences, life histories or needs and only listed care tasks to be performed.

Staff, people who used the service and relatives all felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback about the service. People who used the service knew how to make a complaint and there was an effective complaints procedure in place.

At this inspection there were breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to staffing and person-centred care. The provider recognised the hours worked by some staff were too high and has put a new process in place to cap the hours worked. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

7 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We looked at 10 care plans and saw that the service had revisited people to obtain the consent and all new people that joined the service had signed to give their consent to the service to receive care services.

We found that where people were unable to sign, a family member or advocate would act on behalf and sign confirmation that services could be provided to people.

11 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People were asked for their permission before they received personal care and any other aspect of the care or treatment. However the service did not have a provision to capture this consent for the people they cared for or for those who lacked capacity.

Care plans were concise and person centred. Risk was assessed well and looked at all areas of people's lives and within their homes. One relative said to us "the care plan is good and I think it meets mum's needs, she gets fed, the girls are lovely." Staff were always in contact with the office if they noticed any changes and we saw that the service was always in close communication with the local authority.

Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to escalate a concern. We did find that some staff were not aware of all the different types of abuse but could identify the signs that someone was at risk.

The service had enough staff and staff that went under rigorous checks before gaining employment with Lifecare Professionals.

19 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to two family members and one person who received care. One relative said "They offer choices, if they want a cooked or non cooked breakfast." Family members spoke very positively about the service and told us that they were happy with the care given. They told us that when they call the provider's office they were very helpful and if a carer is needed to attend a person's home sooner they try their best to get somebody there quickly.

The person we spoke to told us that their carers were nice and that they were helped with their shopping.

We spoke to six staff and found they all were supported to do their job to the best of their ability and encouraged to progress in the role.

We found that the service had quality monitoring systems in place and acted on feedback. People had a variety of methods available for them to share their views and opinions about the service.

We saw where incidents had occurred full investigations had been completed with clear action plans and changes to improve the service were completed.