You are here

We are carrying out checks at Everlasting Care Ltd using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 April 2015

We undertook an announced inspection at Everlasting Care Ltd on 11 December 2014. We told the registered provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. This was due to the nature of the service and to ensure people who used the service and staff were available to assist us with the inspection.

This was the first inspection at this location. A previous inspection undertaken on 11 February 2013 at the registered providers previous location found there was a breach of regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. We found an issue with record keeping at the service. We said, “People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.” We said this had a minor impact on people who used the service. At this inspection we found that improvements have been made and the registered provider had rectified the issues identified.

The service is registered to provide personal care and support to people within their own homes; some of whom are living with dementia or related conditions, learning disabilities, mental health issues and/or a physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 66 people using the service that received support and personal care.

The service had a registered manager in place who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

The registered provider had policies and procedures in place which were there to protect people from abuse. Staff we spoke with understood the types of abuse and what the procedure was to report any such incidents. Records showed staff had received training in how to safeguard adults. A whistleblowing policy was also in place. Staff we spoke with again demonstrated what process to follow when raising concerns.

Social work or healthcare professionals assessed the dependency level of people who used the service. They then decided the correct staffing needed to provide effective support to people. Records showed the registered provider had sufficient staff in place to meet people’s needs.

Staff received training that was specifically designed to give them the correct skills for their role. Records and staff confirmed they had received the training required for their role. Staff received supervision and appraisal.

There was an effective recruitment system in place to ensure that those staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people. Suitable checks were carried out for prospective candidates before they started working with people.

People’s medicines were managed effectively and the registered provider had policies and procedures in place to provide staff with guidance in this area. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of how to manage people’s medicines safely.

Mental capacity was assessed by either social work or healthcare professionals and this information was shared with the registered provider who used them to develop care plans for people. Where people lacked capacity, decisions were taken in their best interests. Care plans included instructions on how they should be supported and included their needs, likes and dislikes.

People told us staff knew them well and had a good understanding of their needs. They said staff were respectful to them when supporting them. People’s wellbeing was monitored and people were supported to access support from healthcare professionals such as, general practitioners.

The registered provider measured quality assurance by providing people with surveys to obtain their views on the quality of the service they received. The registered manager also monitored safety and quality at their head office and in people’s own homes. The areas monitored included; health and safety, infection control and fire safety. We saw staff views were obtained during individual one to one supervisions and staff meetings and that these meetings were recorded.

The registered provider kept records including; care plans, risk assessments and staff files. These were well maintained and fit for purpose. We saw they were stored securely.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 April 2015

The service was safe.

People who used the service told us they felt safe when being cared for in their own homes. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and demonstrated what would constitute an abuse and how to report it.

Risk assessments had been completed which reflected people’s needs. The correct level of staff were available to support people.

A system was in place to monitor accidents and incidents for people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 April 2015

The service was effective.

Staff received training that was specifically designed to give them the correct skills for their role. Records and staff confirmed they had received the training required for their role. Staff received supervision and appraisal.

Social work or healthcare professionals had completed assessments where people may lack capacity. This information was contained within people’s care plans.

Staff supported to access healthcare professionals within the community when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 April 2015

The service was caring.

People told us they were happy with the care they received. They said they were well supported by staff who cared for them in their own homes.

Staff monitored people’s health using their care plans. They ensured people had access to a range of social work and healthcare professionals. Where people were ill they were often supported by staff to attend health appointments in the community.

People told us staff treated them with respect and dignity and that they maintained their privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 April 2015

The service was responsive.

There were care plans in place that were based on people’s needs and their likes and dislikes. They were regularly reviewed by senior care staff and amended when people’s needs changed.

Social work or healthcare professionals completed assessments before people began to use the service and the service liaised closely with other agencies to provide people with the correct support.

There was a complaints system in place and people were provided with details of how to complain. The registered manager monitored complaints and responded to them within an appropriate time frame.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 April 2015

The service was well-led.

The registered manager completed audits of the service to monitor the quality of care provided and that the service was safe.

Both people who used the service and staff told us they were well supported by the registered manager. We saw evidence of good communication between the staff team.

People told us they had regular meetings with senior care staff and that they felt free to express their opinions or share any concerns with them. People felt their opinions would be responded to.