The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Caring Sharing & Company Limited

34 Heriot Road, Hendon, London, NW4 2DG (020) 3126 4998

Provided and run by:
Caring, Sharing & Company Limited

All Inspections

23 April 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit Caring Sharing and Company limited were providing personal care to six people living in their own homes. We contacted relatives to ask them about the service. We received mixed views about care staff, one spoke of care staff as being, 'patient, caring and really helpful,' said one relative. 'Care varies according to the care staff involved, but on the whole care is good,' commented another relative.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Care plans were reviewed and updated in line with people's needs and changes recorded.

Systems were in place to monitor and to make improvements to the quality of care and support provided by the agency. However, we were concerned that information on the company's website was misleading and inaccurate and had been over a period of time. Care plans and risk assessments were up to date and some had recently been reviewed to reflect changes.

Staff felt supported by the manager, however we were concerned that some supervision records could not be promptly located on the day of our inspection. Records relating to people who use the service were accurate and stored safely.

2 October 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke to people who used the service and included their comments in the report. We spoke to relatives of the people using the service who told us that they were asked their views about the service. One relative told us that changes are always followed through and that 'staff are quite responsive,' and 'very good.'

Staff personnel records showed that staff had been subject to appropriate and necessary checks by the agency and records showed that staff had recently undertaken training which included manual handling and dignity and privacy. More training is planned for October.

Records for staff and people who use the service were accurate, could be located promptly and care plans and risk assessments were up to date.

One notifiable incident had occurred since the last inspection this was reported to the commission by the provider.

4 July 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People who use the service were unable to talk to us as they had advanced dementia so we spoke with their relatives and friends to get feedback about the service provided. One person described the care provided to their relative as 'patient, they are treated nicely.' They told us that they were involved in the care of their relative and were able to comment on any changes to care provided by the service. We were told that staff used daily notes to record information about care and relatives were kept informed on a daily basis. Relatives told us that they felt able to complain about any concerns about the service.

We visited the service on 29 June 2012 and 4 July 2012. During our inspection we reviewed improvement actions identified from the last inspection in February 2012, and found care plans and risk assessments for people who use the service had been reviewed. Staff refresher training had not been implemented for all staff employed by the service and Information about systems to monitor the service was not available to demonstrate that people were listened to or that their views informed the development of the service.

When we reviewed information we had about the service and visited on 29 June 2012 we found that they had failed to submit statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission informing us of several notifyable incidents in respect of service users.

2 February 2012

During a routine inspection

People who use the service had advanced dementia and so we spoke with their relatives. They told us that peoples' privacy and dignity was respected and that they were assured of continuity of care. When speaking about care plans they confirmed that they were 'involved in the planning' and that carers 'do all that and a bit more'. However care plans did not contain detailed risk assessments in respect of key tasks. Relatives confirmed that people who use the service were comfortable with the carers and one relative said that the person 'was quite happy to see them'. Relatives said that they did not have any complaints about the service but if they did, they said that they would speak to the manager. We were informed that the relatives of a person that had previously used the service had not been satisfied with the care provided. The service had not identified a safeguarding element to the incident although a referral was subsequently made.

When asked about the conduct of carers and the manner in which they provided support relatives told us that they were 'nice, very good and caring'. They said that carers 'know what they are doing' and 'seem highly trained'. However, training records identified that not all carers had completed all of the topics on the training programme and that for some carers certain refresher training was overdue. Relatives confirmed that they were in regular contact with the agency and one relative rated the service provided as 'very good to excellent' and had recommended the service to others. However, although systems were in place to gain feedback on the quality of care provided the information received was not always readily accessible.