Archived: Rest Assured We Care Limited

The service was run by a manager who was not yet registered with CQC, although an interview date is pending. The manager had been with the service for two months. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People’s human rights were not always protected as the manager had not ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act were followed. For people that lacked capacity to make decisions there were mental capacity assessments, however it was not in line with the MCA code of practise. Best interest decisions did not occur.

People told us that staff had the right skills and knowledge to support them. However, the provider did not provide much opportunity for training and staff to renew their skills and learn new ones. Staff received regular supervision. The manager and provider told us they are in the process of reviewing the training and competency assessments for staff.

The service was not always well led. There were some systems in place to monitor, review and improve the quality of care for people; however they were not robust or regular. Communication to people and staff could be improved.

People told us that they felt safe. Despite this, risks to people were not always managed. Some risks to people had been identified but there was no management plan in place, although no harm had come to people. Some people had risk management plans in place to minimise the risk of harm. We have made a recommendation about this in the main body of our report.

The manager lacked oversight of some incidents and accidents. There were no follow up or actions taken for some accidents, which meant that steps were not put in place to reduce the risks of them occurring again.

People’s medicines were administered and stored safely. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. People were supported to eat healthy balanced meals.

People were protected from harm as staff were clear about their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were robust recruitment practises in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

People would receive a service should an emergency arise. We saw that the service had an emergency protocol in place which advised the management and staff what to do if events stop the service

Positive and caring relationships had been established. Staff new people needs, likes and preferences. People and their relatives were involved in planning peoples care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People received a responsive service. People were supported to maintain their independence. People were supported to continue with their interests and activities.

People told us that they felt listened to. There was a complaints procedure in place, complaints had been dealt with in line with the company policy.

People felt they were treated with respect and staff showed regard for their privacy and dignity. People felt able to determine how staff could best support them and meet their needs.

Staff felt valued and motivated and enjoyed their work. They had time to read care plans and also were able to manage their workload effectively.

People felt safe and staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

There were effective and personalised assurance process in place to monitor the quality of service.

We spoke with seven people who used the service, or their relatives; all said they were very happy with the service being provided. One person said 'They are very professional, nothing they could do better.' Another person told us 'They are brilliant; they are very sensitive to my relative's needs.'

All the people we spoke with said that staff acted with their consent. One person said 'They don't do anything without getting my consent first.' Another told us 'They always contact me if decisions need to be made about changes in care.'

People told us the service met their care needs. One person told us 'They have been very supportive and very quick to sort out any issues we raise.' Another said 'They look after my relative extremely well; they do everything they need to do.'

People using the service told us they felt safe with staff.

People were happy with the skill and experience of staff. One person said 'The staff member that supports my relative has experience of Alzheimer's and is also receiving training through Rest Assured We Care.'

The manager was regularly seeking the views of people to ensure they were happy with the service. People told us if they were unhappy about anything they could tell the staff and something would be done.