- Homecare service
Eleanor Nursing and Social Care Ltd - Oxford Office
Report from 12 March 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of inspection 12 March 2025 to 13 May 2025. The service is a domiciliary care service providing care to people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection 63 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.
The inspection has been undertaken of a specialist service that is registered for use by autistic people or people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection, the service was not used by anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group.
The inspection was carried out remotely and conducted in response to safety concerns received about the service. We found 3 breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, consent, and governance.
Governance systems were ineffective, and they failed to identify, monitor and mitigate risks to people’s safety and welfare. Risks assessments were not in place to guide staff on how to safely support people. Safe medicine practices were not promoted and were not in line with best practice or the providers medicine management policy. The service was not working to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which failed to safeguard people. Records were contradictory, inaccurate, incomplete with poor grammar and some terminology recorded was not in line with best practice.
Staff were suitably recruited, and systems were in place to supervise and monitor staff. Staff felt suitably trained although the provider had not identified that staff involved in assessments of people, including completion of risk assessments and supervision of staff were not trained or deemed competent for the roles in line with the providers policies.
Whilst people and their relatives gave mixed feedback on the timing and continuity of calls, systems were in place to ensure staff were suitably deployed to meet people’s needs and agreed package of care.
The provider was proactive in response to our feedback, and they took immediate actions to address the findings, to safeguard people.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the findings and to enable us to monitor progress within the service.
People's experience of this service
We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about their experience of care. Some people told us their calls were on time. However, the majority of people and relatives spoken with told us their call times varied, they were not always informed of delays, and some calls were not for the required time. The provider supported people on a reablement (short term) package as well as people on long term packages of care. The registered manager told us the reablement packages of care were not a timed service. This meant people were not given a specific time for their calls, which could reflect some of the feedback around calls.
A number of people told us they did not have regular carers, and their care was not consistent. 2 relatives raised concerns about male carers providing personal care which was not their preference. 1 relative told us this impacted on their family member's care in that they refused personal care because of the carers being male. The provider confirmed they had systems in place to establish carer preference at the start of the package of care to ensure people were supported appropriately in line with their preferences.
2 people felt there was continuity of care, and they had the same regular carers coming in. They confirmed they had a positive relationship with the carers, whom they trusted and made them feel safe. They commented, “Everyone is very kind and caring, they have a good attitude towards their work and do seem to genuinely want to help people."
Some people told us they thought staff were well trained, whilst others told us the training varied. People and relatives commented, “The training seems basic, and they aren't very well trained. Some of the carers are very good but others do very little or nothing,” and “New carers are not always trained in catheter care, so I have to show them. They are always very happy to learn and quite capable once shown.”
Some people and their relatives described management as ‘friendly and approachable’. However, some relatives told us communication between them and the office was poor. They commented, “There is a lack of communication, and they do not always return my calls, despite being promised. I feel they are slow with information and do not always recognise the concerns of relatives”, and “I often cannot get hold of anyone at the office and have to leave messages. However, no one gets back to me.” In response to this feedback the provider confirmed they were continuing with a duty desk model to strengthen communication and follow-up within the branch.