You are here

Archived: Angel Human Resources (Hammersmith) Requires improvement

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 14 May 2016

Angel Human Resources (Hammersmith) is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide personal care for people in their own homes.

The inspection was carried out on 26 February 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be certain that someone would be in. This was the first inspection of the service since it registered in February 2014.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The person who used the service was not safely supported to take their medicines due to a lack of current information and guidance about their prescribed medicines within their care plan. The care staff and the care co-ordinator demonstrated their understanding of how to recognise and report any abuse they became aware of or witnessed. Risks to people’s safety were identified and actions to mitigate these risks were recorded, in order for the person who used the service to pursue their interests in the community and be as independent as possible.

Safe recruitment procedures were used for selecting and appointing new staff, and there were sufficient staff to meet the person’s needs. Arrangements were in place to manage planned and unplanned staff leave.

Staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of the person who used the service, but did not receive regular formal one-to-one supervision to support their practice, performance and development. Care staff understood how to protect the person’s human rights and make sure that no undue restrictions were placed upon them. The person who used the service was supported to eat a healthy diet and access health care from medical and health care professionals.

The person who used the service was supported by care staff who understood the importance of ensuring the person was given choices and cared for in a kind and respectful way that promoted their dignity. Staff provided appropriate support to enable the person to lead a fulfilling life and take part in meaningful activities that met their social, emotional and spiritual needs.

The person’s needs were assessed and reviewed as required. The care plan did not accurately reflect the personalised care that the person’s relative and the provider informed us about. The person’s relative confirmed that they had been given information about how to make a complaint and were confident that the provider would respond in a professional manner to any concerns or complaints.

The relative told us they were asked for their views about the quality of care and thought the provider acted on their opinions. The provider did not have a system in place to formally record the views of people and their relatives, apart from the annual review meeting, and the quality of the service was not checked through spot checks, monitoring visits or the auditing of daily care records written by care staff.

We made recommendations in relation to the lack of personalised care planning and the absence of a system for checking the daily care records. We found three breaches of regulations in regards to accurate documentation of prescribed medicines within the care plan, formal one-to-one supervision of staff and monitoring visits to the person’s home by the provider. You can see what actions we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the inspection report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was not always safe.

The person�s medicines were managed by staff with appropriate training but were not accurately recorded in the care plan.

Staff understood how to recognise the signs of abuse and report their concerns.

There were enough safely recruited staff to safely meet the needs of the person.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was not always effective.

The person who used the service was supported by staff with appropriate training; however, staff did not receive regular formal one-to-one supervision to ensure they had suitable guidance and support.

The provider had ensured that the person�s legal rights were protected in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff supported the person to receive a healthy diet and access their health care appointments.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was caring.

The person was cared for by staff who respected his/her privacy and dignity.

The person was supported to remain as independent as possible and attend community amenities and services of their choice.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was not always responsive.

Although the person�s relative told us that the care for their family member was person centred, this was not accurately reflected in the care plan.

The person�s needs were reviewed, and their care plan was updated every year or more frequently if required.

Complaints could be raised to the provider, in accordance with the complaints procedure given to the person and their relative.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 May 2016

The service was not always well-led.

The provider did not undertake sufficient checks to ensure that the person who used the service received safe and well delivered care and support, in accordance with their care plan.

The relative told us they were satisfied with how the service was managed and felt consulted about the quality of care.