You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 January 2018

This inspection took place on 27 and 28 November 2017 and was announced 48 hours in advance in accordance with the Care Quality Commission's current procedures for inspecting domiciliary care services.

The service was last inspected in October 2016, when it was rated as Requires Improvement. This was due to concerns about the safety of the service due to an inconsistent system for ensuring that all commissioned calls had taken place. At this inspection we found the provider had addressed the issue by implementing a new call tracking system which automatically made an alert if a scheduled call was not registered as having taken place within a set time scale. The provider told us, “The new tracking system has been great. It has safeguarded everything we do and is a safety net against missed and late calls. It’s our safety alert that everyone has had their visit.”

Live Life Care is a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to adults, of all ages, in their own homes. The service provides help to people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs in central and west Cornwall. The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people safely maintain their independence to live in their homes.

At the time of our inspection 115 people were receiving a personal care service. The services were funded either privately or through Cornwall Council or NHS funding. The service employed 67 staff including management.

The service had 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’s feedback about their experience of the service was positive. People said staff treated them respectfully and asked them how they wanted their care and support to be provided. People told us they had their care visits as planned. Staff arrived on time and stayed for the allotted time. Nobody reported any missed visits.

People confirmed there was a stable staff team and that care was provided by familiar faces. Staff told us that travel times were sufficient, so they were not rushed. People’s comments included, "I get to see the same face; that makes me feel safe”; "They make sure I have something to drink and prepare my meals for the day” and, a relative commented, "They are always on time and they stay their time as well."

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and responded appropriately as people's needs changed. Staff spoke positively about the people they supported and were motivated to provide an individualised service in line with people's needs and goals. Comments from staff included, "I have worked here for a long time; that says it all for me. I wouldn’t stay if I didn’t think they were a good employer and providing a good service to people we support.”

People had a care plan that provided staff with direction and guidance about how to meet people’s individual needs and wishes. Care plans were regularly reviewed and any changes in people’s needs were communicated to staff. Assessments were carried out to identify any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included any environmental risks in people’s homes and any risks in relation to the care and support needs of the person. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and were aware of their care plans.

Daily care records were kept; these were predominantly task focused and did not provide adequate detail of the person-centred care and support provided to people. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

The service worked successfully with healthcare services to ensure people's health care needs were met and had sup

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 January 2018

The service was safe. People received their care visits as planned.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse or mistreatment.

People were supported by staff who had been safely recruited.

People had a range of risk assessments in place covering various aspects of their daily lives.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 January 2018

The service remained effective.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 January 2018

The service remained caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 January 2018

The service remained responsive.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 January 2018

The service was well-led. There was a clear management structure with regular involvement from the provider.

There was effective governance including assurance and auditing systems to monitor and drive improvement in how the service operated.

The service sought the views and experiences of people, their families and the staff in order to continually improve the service.