Archived: Help at Home (East London) Limited

Staff that we met were able to give some examples of how they gave people choice and tried to involve them in their care, enabling them to maintain as much independence as possible. The service statement of purpose included the importance of dignity, respect and privacy.

People we spoke to told us they were "happy" with the care they received and that the care workers were "nice". People's needs and risks were assessed before they received care. Care and support was monitored and reviewed accordingly.

People who used the service were protected from risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening, but there were some shortfalls. The service had a policy for safeguarding people, but this contained out of date information about the regulator and did not make any reference to the local authority who are the lead agency for safeguarding. None of the staff at the service, including managers, had received important safeguarding training.

Care workers that we spoke to were not able to describe the different forms of abuse that might be raised as safeguarding.

Staff told us there were sufficient numbers of staff at all times and they received a suitable basic induction to the service. The manager of the service had responsibility for ensuring the rota reflected people's care and support needs with back up arrangements.

With the exception of staff induction there was no evidence of formal training for most staff. None of the staff including managers had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults, food and hygiene, infection control, personalisation or medicines management training.

Following the last inspection a co-ordinator had been appointed to strengthen staff support arrangements. Supervision and appraisal arrangements were now in place but there was scope to increase the frequency of formal supervision. Staff told us there was adequate day to day support from managers.

There were a range of systems designed to assess and monitor the quality of services provided. The service had invested in a new electronic information system and this had the potential to strengthen recording, access and retrieval of information.

At the time of the visit the provider had moved location address and was in the process of registering the new location. The service manager was waiting for the outcome of their application to become the Registered Manager.

People we spoke with told us they received "good care" from the agency's care workers. One relative said their relative "liked their carer." We found people were given an initial assessment when they first started using the service. People were risk assessed to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Care workers underwent appropriate checks were undertaken before they began work. We found care workers had a criminal record bureau (CRM) check, provided up to three references from previous employers and provided a valid example of their proof of address.

We found care workers received training relevant to their roles and responsibilities. However we found care workers did not receive regular supervisions and appraisals.

The provider had procedures in place to assess and monitor the quality of its service. We found there was a system in place to regularly seek the views of people who used the service. We reviewed completed feedback forms which had been completed by people who used the service. Overall people were satisfied with the care they received.