You are here

Archangel Home Care - Staffordshire Branch Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 19 July 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Archangel Home Care – Staffordshire Branch is a domiciliary care agency that was providing personal care and support to people living in their own home. It provides a service to older adults some of whom are living with dementia, people that have mental health, learning disabilities, physical disabilities, people with sensory impairments and younger adults. At this inspection they were providing a regulated activity for 106 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The management team did not have effective systems in place to monitor people’s medication administration records or action plans, which detailed the improvements the service was working towards.

Staff members did not always follow effective infection prevention and control procedures when supporting people in their own homes.

The provider had systems in place to respond to any complaints or compliments from people.

People were protected from the risks of harm and abuse as staff members had been trained to recognise and respond to concerns. The management team made appropriate referrals to keep people safe. The provider had assessed risks to people associated with their care and support.

The provider supported staff in providing effective care for people through person-centred care planning, training and one-to-one supervision.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received help and support from a kind and compassionate staff team with whom they had developed positive relationships.

People were supported by staff members who were aware of their individual protected characteristics like age, gender and disability.

People were supported to develop their independence whilst living in their own homes.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 06 January 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.


We have identified breaches in relation to and systems not being effective.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 7 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 7 and 8 December 2016 and the visit was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of our inspection because we needed to be sure somebody would be available.

Archangel Home care – Staffordshire Branch provides personal care and support for people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 75 people were receiving personal care and support.

There was a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 felt safe with the support offered from staff. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect them from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed which gave staff guidance about how to support people to reduce the likelihood of harm. Where an accident or incident did occur, the registered manager took action to prevent reoccurrences wherever possible. The provider had plans in place to support people to remain safe during emergencies such as a shortage of staff.

People and their relatives were satisfied with the number of staff available to offer them care and support. The number of staff the provider employed was enough to provide the care that was planned for each person. Prospective staff were checked before they worked for the provider for their suitability.

Where people required support to take their prescribed medicines, this was undertaken in a safe way by staff who had received guidance. Staff knew their responsibilities when handling people’s medicines including what to do should a mistake occur.

Some staff felt that improvements could be made to the training offered to them so that they could practice the skills they required. The provider told us they would make improvements to offer staff training that was undertaken by a trainer rather than on a computer. The registered manager told us they would make improvements to the records of the induction staff received as these were not in place.

People’s food and drink was monitored where this was required to make sure they had enough. People received support to monitor their health where this was required.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Act including what might constitute restrictions to people’s freedom. People were asked for their consent when care and support was offered.

People received support from staff who were kind and offered compassionate care. Their privacy and dignity was protected when receiving care and support. People’s privacy was not always protected as their care records were not always stored carefully. The registered manager took action on the day of our visit to improve this.

Staff knew the people they offered care and support to as people’s care plans contained information on their life histories which staff could describe. People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. For example, staff encouraged people to do tasks with them where this was important to them.

People were involved and contributed to the planning and review of their support so that this was centred on them as individuals. People had care plans that contained information for staff to follow on their likes, dislikes and routines that were important to them.

People were mainly satisfied with the regularity and punctuality of the staff that offered them care and support. The provider was improving on the punctuality of care calls people received and was working with the local authority to make sure that this occurred.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. This was because the provider had a compl

Inspection carried out on 27 March 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We undertook this inspection following concerns received from the local commissioners. During the inspection we spoke with people who used the service, their relatives, care staff and staff that worked in the office.

Most people told us they were satisfied with the care they received. People were more satisfied when they had regular care workers. They told us that regular care staff provided the care they wanted. Comments included: "On the whole good" and "I have four visits a day and nothing is too much trouble".

Assessments of people's needs were completed and a plan of care was available to staff. This made sure that care workers had the information to provide appropriate care.

Records of care generally showed that people received the care as it was outlined in their plan of care. There were a few gaps in some medication and food charts. This meant that the provider could not be sure appropriate care had always been provided.

People did not always receive their care at the time agreed when their care was planned. Times of care were changed and this was not always reflected in the rosters. This meant that care may not be provided at the time the person expected and could affect adversely their wellbeing.

Inspection carried out on 5 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We inspected Archangel Home Care on a planned announced inspection. We had informed the manager two days prior to the visit to ensure that someone would be available to facilitate the inspection. We used an expert by experience to speak with people who used the service or their representatives.

We found and people told us that their care and welfare needs were being met. One person said: �Carers are very reliable, a good group of staff�.

We saw records that confirmed staff knew what constituted abuse and what to do if they suspected abuse had taken place.

We found the service followed the correct procedures when recruiting new staff and they were supported to fulfil their role effectively.

We saw that the service had implemented quality monitoring systems but not all systems were effective in maintaining the service delivery.