You are here

LifeSprings Care Services Ltd (Leicester) Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 7 February 2018

This announced inspection took place on the 9, 10 and 11 January 2018. This was our first inspection of this service since it registered on 11 April 2016. People started using the service from August 2017.

LifeSprings Care Services Ltd is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to older people who live in their own homes in Northamptonshire. At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service.

Lifesprings Care Services Ltd 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.

People told us they felt safe when they were supported by staff and trusted them. All staff had undertaken training in safeguarding to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and knew how to report them. Arrangements were in place at the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learnt when things went wrong to improve safety across the service. Potential risks to people were assessed, however we found the form used to assess potential risks in people’s homes to be limited, and did not reflect all potential risks.

The provider’s recruitment procedures ensured pre-employment checks were carried out on people to ascertain their suitability to work with people. We found there were sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs. People received the support they required, which included having their medicines. Staff followed safe practices to protect people from the risk of infection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrict way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s rights were upheld and decisions about their care were sought as part of the assessment process to identify their needs. We found the form used to of assess potential risks in people’s homes to be limited. The registered manager agreed to make changes to ensure any risks were assessed and mitigated. People’s assessed needs were then used to develop their care. We found that forms used to assess people’s needs and develop care plans did not reflect good practice guidance and is an area for improvement.

People received care from staff that knew them well; who they had positive relationships. Staff had received training and had been introduced to people before they started to provide their care. Staff were supervised by the registered manager, however the supervision of staff did not focus on the development of staff and their training. People received their care at the planned times and staff were able to adapt to people's changing needs. The registered manager liaised with health care professionals when required to promote people’s health and well-being. People received support with their meals and drinks as planned.

People and family members spoke positively about the staff and the care they received. People had developed positive relationships with staff, who were kind and caring and treated people, their

homes and their family members with respect. People were provided with information as to how information held about them was stored and how confidentiality was maintained.

People and their family members were involved in planning all aspects of their care and support and were able to make changes to how their care was provided. Records were regularly reviewed to ensure the care provided met people's current needs. Staff understood people's individual needs and preferences, however these were not always recorded within people’s care plans.

Staff understood people’s preferred means of communicating and this supported people to receive and share information about their care. We found people’s communication needs whilst assessed had not been included within their care plan and is an area for improvement.

People told us they had no complaints about the service and that they were very happy. People said they knew how to raise concerns and make a complaint and were confident to do. The complaints policy and procedure did not contain information for people as to what they could do if they were unsatisfied with a complaint investigation, such as external agencies they could contact. This is an area for improvement.

The registered manager and the staff were knowledgeable about people's needs. The registered manager worked alongside staff in the delivery of care which enabled them to monitor the quality of care people received. Other aspects of quality assurance and governance were limited. The registered manager audited records completed by staff in relation to people’s daily needs and medicine. The registered manager had identified areas for development and improvement within the PIR and was receptive to the initial feedback during the inspection and the areas for improvement. The registered manager said they would be relocating their office in the very near future, which should provide additional time for them to focus on the management of the service and its development.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was safe.

Systems were in place and knowledgeable staff knew how protect people from risk and abuse. Risks were assessed, however improvements could be made. Staff provided care and support to protect people’s rights. People received their medicines safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was not consistently effective.

People's needs were assessed and met by staff who had received training. Staff were supervised, however improvements could be made to further develop and support staff. People were supported to maintain, their health and well-being. The registered manager understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including gaining consent to care and people's right to decline their care.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was caring.

People consistently told us that staff were kind and caring. Staff understood people's needs and worked with them to involve them in decisions about their care and support. Care was provided in a way which respected people's privacy and upheld their dignity. People were provided with information as to how records were stored and measures to ensure confidentiality.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

People consistently told us that staff were kind and caring. Staff understood people's needs and worked with them to involve them in decisions about their care and support. Care was provided in a way which respected people's privacy and upheld their dignity. People were provided with information as to how records were stored and measures to ensure confidentiality.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

People and staff expressed confidence in the management of the service. Due to the small number of people using the service, both the registered provider and registered manager had regular contact with people using the service and worked alongside staff in the delivery of personal care. The monitoring as to the quality of the service was limited. This meant the provider was not using up to date good practice guidance and there were areas for improvement.