• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Caring for You Limited - Portsmouth

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

82 Locksway Road, Southsea, Hampshire, PO4 8JP (023) 9273 8417

Provided and run by:
Caring for You Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Caring for You Limited - Portsmouth on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Caring for You Limited - Portsmouth, you can give feedback on this service.

8 August 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 8, 9,and10 August 2018. 72 hours’ notice was given as we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available when we visited the agency offices. This time also enabled the registered manager to arrange home visits. This allowed us to hear about people’s experiences of the service.

Caring for You Limited – Portsmouth is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. Additional services which are not regulated by the Commission were also provided for example support with housework, companionship services and support to remain active.

At the last inspection in April 2017, the service was rated Requires Improvement. That inspection found staff induction and training, and the governance processes in place to monitor these and check people’s care records were always accurate, required improvement. At this inspection we found the provider had addressed these previous concerns. We found the service had improved from “Requires Improvement” to “Good.”

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.

Why the service is rated Good.

At the time of the inspection, the service was providing personal care to 99 people.

People and their relatives told us staff were caring and kind. Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion for people through their conversations and interactions. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. People were actively involved in making choices and decisions about how they wanted to live their lives and receive their support. People were protected from abuse because staff understood what action to take if they were concerned someone was being abused or mistreated.

People received care which was responsive to their needs. People and their relatives were encouraged to be part of the care planning process and to attend or contribute to care reviews where possible. This helped to ensure the care being provided met people’s individual needs and preferences. Support plans were personalised and guided staff to help people in the way they liked.

Risks associated with people’s care and living environment were effectively managed to ensure their freedom was promoted. People were supported by consistent staff to help meet their needs. People’s independence was encouraged and staff helped people feel valued by engaging them in everyday tasks where they were able, for example by encouraging them to wash the areas they could reach.

The registered manager and provider wanted to ensure the right staff were employed, so recruitment practices were safe and ensured that checks had been undertaken. Staff underwent a thorough induction and ongoing training to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s medicines were managed safely by competent staff.

People received care from staff who had undertaken training to be able to meet their unique needs. People’s human rights were protected because the registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People’s nutritional needs were met because staff followed people’s support plans to make sure people were eating and drinking enough and potential risks were known. People were supported to access health care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Policies and procedures across the service ensured information was given to people in accessible formats when and if required, for example information in larger fonts. People were treated equally and fairly and staff had received training in equality and diversity. Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs for example simple questions and information was given to people with cognitive difficulties and information about the service available in larger print for those people with visual impairments.

The service was well led by the registered manager who was also the nominated individual. They were supported in their role by the company directors and a small, dedicated team. There were quality assurance systems in place to help assess the ongoing quality of the service, and to help identify any areas which might require improvement. Complaints and incidents were reflected upon to ensure improvement. The registered manager / provider promoted the ethos of honesty and admitted when things had gone wrong. The service kept abreast of changes to maintain quality care.

25 April 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 April 2017. The inspection was announced.

Caring for You Limited – Portsmouth provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 106 people receiving care and support from the service. They were supported by 29 care workers, three co-ordinators, which included one trainer, one team leader, an administrator, a senior care worker and the registered manager.

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.

At the last inspection on 23 April 2015 we received some concerns that people received late calls and were not made aware if the care worker was running late. We made a recommendation to the provider to address people’s dissatisfaction with the duration of calls and continuity of care staff. At this inspection we found this had improved and although some lateness still occurred, this was unpredicted and a plan was in place to ensure people were safe and received a service.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm and safeguarding concerns received had been dealt with appropriately. A variety of risk assessments were in place to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staffing levels were sufficient and safe recruitment and medicines practices were followed.

Although people felt staff had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs; refresher training was not always provided, staff felt the training was not always effective and the induction programme was not always followed. Staff received regular supervisions and spot checks. The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to put this into practice. People were supported to maintain good health, hydration and nutrition.

Positive caring relationships were developed between people and staff. Staff were kind, caring and respected people’s dignity and privacy and promoted peoples independence. People consented to and were involved in their care.

People received care that was personalised, up to date and met their needs. They had individual care folders which contained a care needs assessment, care plan, risk assessments and completed daily logs. People were involved in their care planning and communication between the office and care staff about people’s care needs was effective. Complaints had been dealt with in line with the providers policy.

People and their family were positive about the management of the service. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and office staff and felt able to question practice with confidence that their concerns would be dealt with. Systems and Audits were in place to review the quality and safety of the service and feedback on service delivery had been recently received and analysed. However some audits to assess staff training and ensure care plans were correct were not always effective. Notifications had been sent to the Commission.

23 April 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 23 April 2015. We gave notice of our intention to visit Caring for You Limited – Portsmouth’s office to make sure people we needed to speak to were available. After our visit to the office we contacted people who used the service and members of staff by telephone.

Caring for You Limited – Portsmouth provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 90 people receiving care and support from the service. They were supported by 27 care workers.

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.

At our previous inspection in July 2014 we found the service was not meeting minimum standards in three areas. The registered manager sent us an action plan describing how they planned to meet the standards. The plan’s completion date was in February 2015. We found improvements had been made. The service was now meeting the minimum standards set in the regulations but we found improvements were still needed in the key area of Responsiveness.

Care was planned and delivered according to assessments which met people’s needs and reflected their preferences. However people told us improvements were needed to reduce the number of late and short calls, and to provide better continuity of care workers. People wanted more proactive communication from the office. We have made a recommendation about the timing of calls.

The provider had systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns. Risk assessments were in place with action plans to protect people’s safety and wellbeing.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The provider had robust recruitment processes to check that staff were suitable to work in a care setting. Staff were supported by effective training, supervision and appraisal to maintain their skills and knowledge and to deliver care and support to the required standard. Medicines were handled safely.

Care and support were delivered with people’s consent. People were involved in their care planning and assessments. Staff were aware of their responsibilities if people were assessed as not having capacity to make certain decisions.

Where appropriate people were supported to eat and drink healthily and to access healthcare services including GPs and paramedics.

There were caring relationships between people and their care workers. People were supported to be as independent as possible, and staff took care to respect people’s dignity and privacy. People were encouraged to participate in decisions about their care.

There was a complaints process in place, but people had not used it. People found the office was responsive to requests and comments. The registered manager made sure compliments were passed on to the care worker if they were named by the person making the compliment.

The culture of the service was open and communicative. There was a spirit of team work and high morale amongst care workers. Management systems were effective. The registered manager monitored and assessed the quality of service provided and improvements were noted by people who used the service.

29 July 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit we were told the agency was providing personal care support to 135 people. We attempted to speak with 13 staff and gained feedback from five members of staff. We also spoke with the registered manager. We reviewed the care records of eight people. We attempted to gain feedback from 27 people who used the service and received feedback from 12 people and five relatives.

The inspection team was made up of a single inspector and an expert by experience. We set out to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

The agency had effective systems in place to monitor and manage any infection control risks. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in this and received training to support their understanding.

The provider ensured all appropriate recruitment checks were undertaken before staff could start working with people.

Staff understood the importance of respecting people and were able to clearly describe how they did this and supported people's right to make choices and remain independent. Care plans had been developed for people based on an assessment of needs; however these did not always reflect the person's current needs and the action staff needed to take to meet them.

We have asked the provider to tell us what action they will be taking to ensure they meet the requirement of law in relation to care planning and the maintenance of accurate records.

Is the service effective?

Risks for people associated with any health conditions were not always assessed and support was not always planned in a way that ensured any risks were minimised. We have asked the provider to tell us what action they will be taking to ensure they met the requirement of law in relation to risk assessment and care planning.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us they were supported by kind and caring staff. They told us staff respected their privacy and dignity. They told us the care staff listened to them and the agency was supportive.

Is the service responsive?

People and staff we spoke with were confident and comfortable to raise any concerns they may have. They told us they were confident the agency would listen and would take action to address any concern, promptly. Staff told us when they had raised concerns these had been addressed immediately.

Is the service well led?

The agency had a number of systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service. The system used for auditing of care plans was not always effective. It did not identify when care plans needed to be updated to ensure all staff had access to accurate and up to date information. We have asked the provider to tell us what action they will be taking to ensure they meet the requirements set by law in relation to the monitoring and assessing of the quality of the service they provide.

12 November 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit we were told that the service provides personal care support to 160 people and employed approximately 50 care staff, two care coordinators and two senior carers. We attempted to speak to 30 people who use the service and received feedback from 19.

We found that the service asked for people's consent before providing support and acted in accordance with their wishes.

People we spoke with expressed the views that they were pleased with the services they received from staff of the agency. However, we found that risk assessments did not provide clear and sufficient information to staff.

We found that the provider had effective systems in place to ensure that medicines were managed effectively.

We saw that the service had enough skilled, qualified and experienced staff that were supported appropriately to meet people's needs. Staff we spoke with told us they had enough time to support people.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service they provide. People were asked for their views and these were acted upon. Staff we spoke with told us they felt listened to and that the manager was supportive and responsive.

28 November 2012

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. Everyone we spoke to said us that the care workers were polite, treated them with respect and dignity, and knew what was expected of them.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People said that the care workers were 'really reliable' and punctual.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the agency had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified skilled and experienced staff.

The agency had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

There was an effective complaints system. Comments and complaints people made were responded to in a timely and appropriate way.

1 February 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We called and spoke to some people who use the service and we contacted some of the staff. People told us that the staff were very kind, friendly, helpful and respectful. They said that they felt that their dignity and privacy was respected when receiving care.

People said that the agency had carried out an assessment of their needs to ensure that they could meet them before a service was provided. They said that a senior staff came to check that the care staff were doing what they should.

People said that the 'staff could not be better'. Another person said that 'they do anything for me'. They said that they usually had the same staff which meant that there was continuity in their care. They told us that they were aware of the times of their visits and staff usually kept to those times.

We were told that sometimes the less experienced staff did not provide the same level of care. One person said that the agency did not always let them know who would be coming when the regular staff were on leave. Overall people were satisfied with the care and support that they received.