You are here

Archived: Quality Carers (UK) Ltd Good Also known as Quality Carers (UK) Ltd

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

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 March 2016

The inspection took place on 7 and 8 January 2016. The inspection was announced. This was because the service was a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the registered location so we could carry out our inspection.

Quality Carers UK is a Domiciliary Care service that provides personal care and support to people with learning disabilities and older people who live in their own home and for children within a school setting. The service covers the Darlington area and at the time of our inspection provided support to 8 people.

The service had a manager who had submitted their application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) for registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

We spoke with a range of different staff members; senior carers, care staff and the managing director who told us that the manager was always available and approachable. Throughout the day we spoke with people who used the service and staff who assured us that they were comfortable and relaxed with the manager and each other.

From looking at people’s care plans we saw they were written in plain English and in a person centred way and made good use of, personal history and described individuals’ care, treatment, wellbeing and support needs. These were regularly updated by the care staff and reviewed by the manager.

Individual care plans contained risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care plans we viewed also showed us that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary for example: their GP, mental health team and care managers.

From speaking with people who used the service this showed us that people were supported in a person centred way by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their individual needs within their own homes and within the community. The recruitment process that we looked into was safe and inclusive.

When we looked at the staff training records and spoke with the manager we could see staff were supported to maintain and develop their skills through training and development opportunities. The staff we spoke with confirmed they attended a range of learning opportunities. They told us they had regular supervisions and appraisals with the manager, where they had the opportunity to discuss their care practice, wellbeing and identify further mandatory and vocational training needs.

We were unable to observe how the service administered medicines on the day of our inspection but we were able to establish how people managed them safely in their own home. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with the manager about how staff were trained to administer medicines and we found that the medicines administering process was safe.

During the inspection we received positive feedback from people who used the service that the staff had a good rapport with them. People told us that staff were caring, positive, encouraging and attentive when communicating and supporting them in their own home with daily life tasks, care and support.

People were being encouraged to plan and participate in activities that were personalised and meaningful to them. For example, people who used the service told us how staff spent time with them on a one to one basis in activities and we observed and saw evidence of other activities in the care plans such as bingo, visiting cafes, shopping and socialising. People were being supported regularly to play an active role in their local community.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for makin

Inspection areas



Updated 8 March 2016

This service was safe.

There was sufficient staff to cover the needs of the people safely in their own homes.

People’s rights were respected and they were involved in making decisions about any risks they may take. The service had an efficient system to manage accidents and incidents and learn from them so they were less likely to happen again.

People who used the service knew how to disclose safeguarding concerns and staff knew what to do when concerns were raised and they followed effective policies and procedures.

People were supported in their own homes to administer their own medicines safely.



Updated 8 March 2016

This service was effective.

People could express their views about their health and quality of life outcomes and these were taken into account in the assessment of their needs and the planning of their care.

Staff were regularly supervised and appropriately trained with skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs, preferences and lifestyle choices.



Updated 8 March 2016

This service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and their dignity was respected.

People who used the service had access to advocacy services to represent them.

People were understood and had their individual needs met, including needs around social inclusion and wellbeing.

Staff showed concern for people’s wellbeing. People had the privacy they needed and were treated with dignity and respect at all times.



Updated 8 March 2016

This service was responsive.

People received care and support in accordance with their preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs. People and those that mattered to them were encouraged to make their views known about their care, treatment and support.

People had access to activities and outings, that were important and relevant to them and they were protected from social isolation.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s current individual needs, choices and preferences.



Updated 8 March 2016

This service was well led.

There was an emphasis on fairness, support and transparency and an open culture. Staff were supported to question practice and those who raised concerns and whistle-blowers were protected.

There was a clear set of values that included; person centred approaches, community involvement, compassion, dignity, respect, equality and independence, which were understood by all staff.

There were effective service improvement plans and quality assurance systems in place to continually review the service including, safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents, and complaints/concerns.