You are here

Luton Friendship Home Carers Limited Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 April 2016

We carried out this announced inspection by visiting the office on 30 March 2016. Following this, we spoke with people who used the service, relatives and members of staff by telephone. At the time of the inspection, the service provided care and support for 73 older people living in their own homes.

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.

People using the service were kept safe from any risk of harm and staff knew how to report any concerns regarding people’s welfare. Risk assessments were carried out on both the environment and on behalf of the person to detail ways in which they could be kept safe. There were enough trained and competent staff available to meet people’s needs, and people told us they usually received their calls on time. There were robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure that staff employed were suitable to work in the service. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were trained and competent.

Staff received a variety of training that was regularly updated and refreshed as required. Supervisions and performance reviews took place with the management team to provide them with an opportunity to develop their skills further. Training was provided to understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and assessments were carried out where people required decisions to be made on their behalf. People consented to their care and support. People’s healthcare needs were met by the service and they were referred to other healthcare agencies for support where required. People who required support with cooking, eating and drinking had their dietary needs met.

Staff were caring and understood the people they were providing care to. People were treated with dignity and respect and given opportunities to give their feedback on the quality of their care.

People’s care plans were detailed and comprehensive enough to provide an overview of the person’s needs and preferences. If people’s needs changed then the service were responsive to this and worked closely with other stakeholders to ensure consistency of care. Regular reviews took place with the person and their relatives to give them an opportunity to contribute to the planning of their care. The service had a robust policy in place to handle complaints and dealt promptly with those received.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the management of the service. The visions and values of the provider were clear and people spoke highly of the ethos of the organisation and how it translated into practice. Staff were given opportunities to develop and contribute to the service through team meetings. There was a robust system in place for quality monitoring and identifying improvements that could be made in all areas of the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 21 April 2016

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded by staff who understood how to protect people from avoidable risk of harm.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure that staff who were suitable to deliver care and support safely.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs.



Updated 21 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received a range of specialised training that was relevant to their role.

People’s healthcare needs were assessed and the service worked with other professionals to support people’s health and well-being.

Staff received regular supervision and performance review from management.



Updated 21 April 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and compassionate staff who understood their needs.

People were treated with dignity and respect.



Updated 21 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People had care plans in place that were person-centred and had involvement from people and their relatives.

Complaints received by the service were handled and resolved efficiently.



Updated 21 April 2016

The service was well-led.

The visions and values of the service were demonstrated by strong management.

People involved with the service were encouraged to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement.

There was a quality monitoring system in place for identifying improvements that needed to be made to develop the service.