We carried out a review of the data available to us about Care For All on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Care For All, you can give feedback on this service.
The provider is Mrs Phyllis Robertson. The provider is an individual 'registered person' and, as such, there is no requirement for them to have a registered manager for this service. 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. We will refer to the provider as the 'manager' throughout this report.
At the last inspection on 3 July 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’ overall.
We inspected this service on 12 and 13 September 2017. The manager was given 48 hours' notice of our inspection; because we needed to be sure someone would be in the location office when we visited. At the time of our inspection, there were 80, mainly older people, using the service who were receiving support with personal care. At this inspection, we found the service remained ‘Good’ with outstanding standards of care delivery.
People told us they felt safe and well cared for and staff were able to tell us what they would do to ensure people were safe.
Medicines were administered in the correct manner and handled safely to protect people.
Staff were recruited safely. The service had sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff deployed to care for people who used the service. People were protected by the infection control procedures followed by staff.
Training was up to date across a range of relevant areas. Staff were knowledgeable and demonstrated they had the skills and aptitude required to provide care to people who used the service.
Staff had received up to date training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood that people should be consulted about their care and understood the principles of the MCA. People were supported to make choices and best interest decisions were made when required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People's nutrition and hydration needs were met. People enjoyed the meals and had choices around their meals and drinks.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff worked in a person-centred manner and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff had positive, genuine relationships with the people they supported and were passionate about their role. People told us staff were exceptionally kind and caring and always went the extra mile.
The manager and the staff worked in a proactive, person-centred manner, which put the person at the heart of the care provision. The manager and the staff were exceptionally flexible in responding to people's needs and demonstrated ingenuity and vision when devising packages of care. People consistently told us the manager and the staff went above and beyond their duties when providing care to them.
Staff worked well together as a team. They had good shared knowledge about people’s needs and they used this knowledge to ensure the best outcomes for people were achieved.
Care plans contained detailed information which reflected people's individual requirements and detailed their preferences. Care plans were kept up to date when people's needs changed. People were involved in devising their care plan and they had active input into the reviews of their care. People’s choices and preferences were respected and acted upon.
Records and observations provided evidence that people were treated in a way which encouraged them to feel valued and cared about. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and demonstrated warmth and empathy.
People told us their complaints were responded to in a timely fashion and dealt with in a manner they approved of. People were confident their concerns would be listened to.
The provider supported the staff to be effective in their role. Staff told us the provider was approachable and empathetic.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This service was inspected on 3 July 2015 and was announced.
Care For All is a privately run domiciliary care agency providing care and support to 82 people of all ages in their own homes. The service was registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide care for younger adults and older people who may be living with dementia, have a mental health condition, have a sensory impairment or a physical disability. The service covers Scarborough, Filey and the surrounding villages.
There was no registered manager at this service because the provider managed the service. This is because the provider is an individual and meets the relevant criteria to be fit to manage a 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.
We saw that staff had received training in safeguarding adults and children. Staff were able to confirm that they had attended the training and could tell us what they would do if they witnessed any abuse of a person they were caring for.
Staff had been recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff worked in small core teams so that people who used the service received a consistent service. .
People were provided with care by staff that were well trained in areas that were relevant to people’s day to day care such as medicines training and moving and handling of people as well as more specialist subjects such as diabetes.
Where risks had been identified there were clear management plans in place for staff to follow.
Everyone we spoke with described staff as caring and kind and made positive comments about the management of the service. The service was well managed.
Staff were supported by senior staff from the agency and received supervision. They were encouraged to share ideas at meetings and the manager regularly worked with staff and supervised their practice.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.We could see that consent had been sought from people who used the service and from relatives for those people who may lack capacity.
People who used the service told us that they would know how to complain about the agency.
We found that Care for All offered an individual and responsive service people. The provider explained that she kept the service small so that she could continue to offer a personalised service where she knew each person well.
People were protected with regard to consent and capacity issues. They received focused and flexible care, where risks had been considered and specialists consulted.
The service handled medication safely and ensured that people were protected with regard to their medication needs.
Staff were safely recruited.
The service had a system in place to ensure the quality of care offered.
We found that the service offered personalised and quality care. We saw evidence of detailed assessments of care needs, with risk assessments in place. All care documentation was kept under close review and reflected the current needs of people receiving the service. People's views were written into care plans and we saw that the manager regularly consulted with health and social care professionals to ensure people's care had the benefit of specialist advice. Staff had received training in abuse awareness and the manager understood and carried out her responsibilities in relation to protecting people from harm. Staff had an induction to their role and received training to offer personalised care. They also had the benefit of constructive supervision which helped them to gain confidence and the skills to offer appropriate care. The manager carried out a number of quality assurance checks to ensure the service improved and continued to meet people's needs.