The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Independent Living Alternatives

Trafalgar House, Grenville Place, Mill Hill, London, NW7 3SA (020) 8906 9265

Provided and run by:
Independent Living Alternatives

All Inspections

27 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Independent Living Alternatives (ILA) referred to care workers as personal assistant (PA) and to people who used the service as personal assistance users (PAU). We will use these terms throughout this report.

We gathered information about the quality of service provided by speaking with two PAU's and two PA's over the telephone, viewed care records of five PAU's and staffing records of eleven PA's. We viewed additional records and policies relevant to the treatment and care provided by the agency.

PAU's received appropriate care support that met their individual needs and enabled them to stay independent. PAU's spoke highly about their PA's. One PAU told us that without the PA the person would not be able to go to work" and another PAU told us, "My PA genuinely cares, is easy to talk to and is very supportive."

There were processes in place to protect people who used the service from harm.

PA's were supported to provide support to PAU's and received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal of their work.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

13 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people using the service by telephone. They were happy with the care they received. One person described the care as 'brilliant.' People told us they controlled the recruitment of staff, known at the service as personal assistants. One person told us, 'I wouldn't use anyone else.' Staff were supported to deliver care and treatment to an appropriate standard. People told us they felt confident to raise their concerns and that they agency would deal with them promptly.

We identified concerns regarding the recruitment process. Evidence from staff files showed that CRB checks were not always in place before a personal assistant commenced working with people who use the service. A review of staff files and people's care plans demonstrated that people's records and staff records were not always kept up to date.

16 March 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke to a number of people using the service by telephone. All the people we spoke to felt that they were satisfied with their care. They said they were happy with the arrangements for their care. People told us they were involved in the recruitment of their personal assistants or support workers. They told us they were treated with respect and dignity and they had information they needed to make decisions.

People using the service told us that their needs were identified and that personal assistants completed the required task so that their needs were met. People's views can be summarised by the following comments

"My personal assistant is helpful".

"I am very happy with my care".

People using the service confirmed that they trusted their personal assistants. They told us that they had no concerns and they knew how or who to contact if they had a concern. People's views can be summarised by the following comments:

"My personal assistant treats me well".

"I trust my personal assistant".

People using the service told us that their personal assistants responded to their needs appropriately and that they had confidence in them. They told us that personal assistants or support workers were punctual and always carried out the tasks they were supposed to do. A person using the service commented: "My personal assistant is good; he does all the things I want him to do for me". Another person stated while they were happy with their personal assistants and the care they received, they would like to see the agency provide more opportunities for staff coming from abroad to improve their English. This will enable them to communicate effectively with the people using the service. People told us that this was not a big issue and the quality of care they received was not affected by it.

People using the service told us that they had been asked to give feedback and they felt that their views regarding the service had been sought. People felt that the service was responsive to their suggestions and they were able to influence the way the agency operated.