You are here

Quality Care (North West) Limited Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Quality Care (North West) Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 23 November 2016

We carried out an unannounced inspection at Quality Care (North West) Limited on the 12, 13 and 17 October 2016. We contacted people using the service on the 13 and 17 October 2016.

Quality Care (North West) is registered with the Commission to provide personal care. This family run agency has been in operation since 1996 providing domiciliary care services within the borough of Pendle. The range of services provided includes personal care, domestic assistance and a sitting service. The agency office is staffed during the hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, with a 24-hour on-call system for emergencies. At the time of our inspection there were 83 people receiving a service

We last visited Quality Care (North West) Limited on the 10 February 2014. The service was fully compliant in all areas assessed.

At the time of this inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

During this inspection we found the service was meeting the current regulations.

People using the service received care and support from a team of staff who had been recruited safely and trained to deliver safe and effective care and support. People who completed our survey told us they felt safe from abuse or harm from the staff and they were treated with respect. People we spoke with told us they felt safe in their homes. Staff followed their instructions to gain access to their property and left their homes secure. They told us staff were trustworthy and respected their home.

People using the service and their relatives described the service as very good. They said staff were very respectful, attentive to their needs and treated them with kindness and respect when providing their support. Staff were also described in such terms as being caring and kind, the best, remarkable and lovely people.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable people and knew what to do if they suspected any abusive or neglectful practice. Safeguarding procedures were in place to guide and direct staff in reporting any concerns they had. People we spoke with knew what to do if they had any concerns regarding the staff who supported them.

Risks to people’s health, welfare and safety were managed very well. Risk assessments were thorough and informed staff of the actions to take to support people safely. People knew they could contact the agency at any time and had emergency contact details for out of office hours. The service responded well to requests for urgent help.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to support people to take their medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed, by staff that had been trained to do this safely. People we spoke with told us their visits were arranged to ensure they got their medicines at the right time.

Staff knew what to do in emergency situations and had guidance around keeping themselves and people they supported safe. Good arrangements were in place for staff to gain entry into people’s homes without placing them at risk. Staff were provided with protective equipment such as disposable gloves and aprons to minimise the risk of cross infection between people they visited.

Staff were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood the principles of best interest decisions’ regarding people’s care and support and people’s diversity was embraced within their care plans. Care plans were well written and person centred and focused on the needs of people using the service. People’s right to privacy, dignity, choice and independence was considered and reflected in their care plan.

Staff felt confident in their roles because they were well trained

Inspection areas



Updated 23 November 2016

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe with staff that were respectful to them and their property. They were cared for by staff that had been carefully recruited and were considered to be of good character.

Staff were aware of their duty and responsibility to protect people from abuse and were aware of the procedure to follow if they suspected any abusive or neglectful practice.

Risks to the health, safety and wellbeing of people who used the service were assessed and there was good guidance in place for staff in how to support people in a safe way.



Updated 23 November 2016

The service was effective.

People received care and support that was specific to their needs. People were supported by staff that were well trained to meet their needs and were supervised in their work.

Staff and management had an understanding of best interest decisions and the MCA 2005 legislation.

People's health and wellbeing was consistently monitored and staff worked in partnership with health and social care when delivering care and support when necessary.

Visits were arranged to ensure people were supported when required, to eat and drink.



Updated 23 November 2016

The service was caring.

People who used the service were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected by staff they described as “fantastic” “wonderful”, “cheerful”, “a good friend to me and very kind”.

People’s care and support was provided according to their expressed wishes and preferences.



Updated 23 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were centred on their wishes and needs and kept under review.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences and the agency offered a flexible service that responded to any changes in people’s requirements including emergencies.

People felt able to raise concerns and had confidence in the registered manager to address their concerns appropriately.



Updated 23 November 2016

The service was well led.

There were effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received.

The registered manager had ensured core values of honesty, involvement, compassion, dignity, independence, respect, equality and safety were central to people’s care and support.

There was open and effective communication between the management, staff, other professionals, people and relatives. This ensured everyone was fully involved in developing and improving the service and that staff were valued and managed well.