Archived: Eternity Care LLP

We found, from documentary evidence supplied, that the service had carried out recruitment processes that ensured people were cared for by suitably recruited staff.

We visited the service on 7 May 2014, we gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? We further gathered information from people and their relatives who used the service and from staff who worked at the service by telephoning them. We completed the telephone interviews on 13 May 2014.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our review of records, speaking with people and their relatives who used the service and speaking with staff who supported the people who used the service.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us they were treated with respect and dignity. For example, one person said, 'The carers informed me of what they were going to do before undertaking the task'.

We observed the service had a system in place to ensure that people's risk assessments were kept under regular review. Any trends identified were dealt with to minimise risks relating to people's health, welfare and safety.

Staff spoken with were able to describe what measures the service had in place to promote people's safety and how they would protect people if they felt their human rights were being breached.

We found that the service did not have a system in place that ensured staff they employed to support people had been appropriately recruited.

The service had control processes in place to ensure that staff who prompted people to take their medicines had suitable training to enable them to handle medicines safely, securely and appropriately.

We saw documented evidence that the service used a range of quality monitoring tools such as telephone calls, spot checks, yearly clients, relatives and staff satisfaction surveys to measure the quality of care and support people received from the service. People told us they felt safe with the staff.

Is the service effective?

We found that people's care plans (support plans) provided detailed information on how they wished to be supported with their care needs. For example, times of visits had been clearly stated. We observed that people's weekly time sheets included the date, arrival time, length of visit and comments about what help and support was offered to the person. Care staff spoken with told us they used the communication sheet to highlight any changes to the person's care to ensure continuity of care. These records were appropriately maintained to make sure if necessary a new member of staff would be able to deliver care safely and effectively.

Care staff told us they had regular supervisions and appraisals to make sure they were competent to deliver effective care to people who used the service. We saw documented evidence of care staff appraisals and spot checks on staff which had been carried out by the registered manager and or the general manager. We saw records of staff training which demonstrated care staff had regular and appropriate training to enable them to meet the care needs of people who used the service. Staff spoken with confirmed they have had regular and suitable training.

We found that people's health care needs were kept under regular review and they had been involved in the reviews. People had access to health care professionals such as the GP, dentist, optician and district nurse. This meant that people were supported to keep healthy and well.

Is the service caring?

People told us that care staff spoke to them in a kind and respectful manner. One person said, 'The staff all of them demonstrates a genuine affection, care and concern to me'. All members of staff spoken with were knowledgeable about people's care needs including their preferences and personal histories. It was evident that people were listened to and care staff responded to them in a positive and caring way. One person said, 'I feel I receive excellent care'.

Is the service responsive?

The people we spoke with told us they were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support. In the care plans we looked at, we saw evidence which reflected that people and their relatives were involved in making their views known about how they wished to be cared for and supported. Where people were not able to sign their care plans they were signed by family members on their behalf. We saw evidence that regular care plan reviews took place. This meant that people's care needs were current and kept under regular review.

We found the service had received two complaints which had been dealt with to the satisfaction of the complainants. People we spoke with all said they knew how to make a complaint, but had never done so. They said they discussed their care needs at each visit with the member of care staff and they worked well together so there was never any need to complain.

Is the service well led?

Staff spoken with said that they felt supported by the management team and were provided with regular staff meetings and one to one supervisions and yearly appraisals. At these meetings they were able to raise questions relating to the delivery and implementation of best practice. This meant that staff felt supported and well-led.

We found that the service had quality assurance systems in place. Staff practice was regularly observed. The outcomes from these were discussed and used to improve the care provided. Staff spoken with said that they were provided with adequate training. This enabled them to perform their roles and to be accountable for their actions.

People spoken with told us the registered manager or the general manager is always available on the phone. They said either the registered manager or the general manager made regular unannounced visits to their homes to check if they were happy with the care they received and if the care worker was performing satisfactory. We saw documented evidence of these visits on the day of our inspection visit. This ensured people received agreed and effective care and the service was well led.

The service had arrangements in place to monitor complaints, accidents and incidents. This meant that lessons were learnt from incidents and complaints investigations to ensure improvements to the service delivery.

The registered manager was not available, so the other director of the company assisted us on this inspection site visit.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received from the staff. One person said, 'The staff consulted with me, and I signed the care plans to show I agree to the care and support in the plans'.

People told us the manager made regular telephone contact with them to ask how things were going. Also the manager visited unannounced to observe and work with the support worker.

People told us what they liked best about the agency was the way the staff involved them in their care. One Person said, 'The staff discusses my care with me. I know what is going on. Nothing is hidden from me'.

The people whom we spoke with told us they had never had to make a complaint. We observed the service had a complaints book in place. We observed their complaints guidelines was displayed on the notice board.

We found that people's risk assessments were carried out and action plans were in place to minimise or reduce the identified risks.