You are here

Archived: Pride & Joy Homecare Ltd. Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 7 January 2016

We undertook an announced inspection of the Pride and Joy Homecare Ltd on 7 October 2015. We told the provider a few days before our visit that we would be coming, so that we could access the necessary records. This was the first inspection of this service.

Pride and Joy Ltd is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. This is a small service and was providing care to 10 people when we carried out this inspection.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 felt safe when receiving the service. They were kept safe and free from harm as all risks had been thoroughly assessed. There were just sufficient staff to provide the service and the registered manager had contingency plans in place if there were any sudden staffing shortages, so that people’s needs were always met. There was a safe recruitment process for all permanently employed staff.

People were confident that care would be provided at the planned times unless they received a phone call about changes.

Staff said they had received sufficient training to carry out the tasks needed and felt they could request more if the need arose. Care plans were in place, which detailed how people wished to be supported Consent and agreement was always sought and staff were aware of making decisions in people’s best interests if absolutely necessary. Support was given to ensure people had sufficient to eat and drink and they had assistance to call for medical help if needed.

People found the current staff were caring and provided an appropriate service that met their needs. Staff were always respectful and left things tidily.

The service was able to respond to people’s specific needs to enhance their quality of life. Any concerns or complaints were investigated and responses were given by the manager.

Staff felt supported by the regular contact they had with the manager and through discussion in staff meetings. The registered manager led by example and took on some of the care tasks herself. This meant some management tasks were not always completed and she was trying to arrange further support to assist with managing the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 7 January 2016

The service was safe

People were protected from harm as staff understood what action they needed to take to keep people safe. All risks to people were assessed so that action was taken to reduce any risk of harm.

People’s needs were met safely by the staff available and recruitment for new care staff was on going.

People had safe support from staff when needed with their medicines. 



Updated 7 January 2016

The service was effective.

People’s diverse and specific needs were met by appropriate staff training. New staff worked with the manager or other experienced staff to increase their knowledge and awareness.

People made their own decisions about their care and staff always consulted them about all aspects of the support they needed.

People also received appropriate support with meeting their health care needs and staff gave support as requested and needed with eating and drinking.



Updated 7 January 2016

The service was caring.

People valued having positive caring relationships with the staff.

People and their relatives were at the centre of planning the care and support they needed and staff always consulted them about all aspects of the support they were providing.

Privacy and dignity were respected.



Updated 7 January 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care that was personalised just for them and met their individual needs.

People were encouraged to make a complaint if they needed to and could do this in person, by telephone or in writing. The manager followed a clear process to ensure people were satisfied with the action taken.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 January 2016

The service was not consistently well led.

There was a registered manager, who led by example, and supervised staff, but

some management tasks were not always completed and recorded.

A system was in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided, but needed formalising.