You are here

Archived: Care Companions Limited - 38a High Street

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 April 2014
Date of Publication: 22 May 2014
Inspection Report published 22 May 2014 PDF | 87.05 KB


Inspection carried out on 8 April 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. The inspector gathered evidence against the outcomes inspected to help answer our five key 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. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.


Effective systems were not in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents. This meant that the service did not have an adequate system of service improvement.

A process for staff supervision was in place and staff were supported to undertake training relative to the needs of the people they were caring for.

Staff had undertaken training relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and mental capacity issues had been discussed during some staff supervision sessions.

Is the service effective?

People�s initial care needs were assessed when they started to receive care, and plans of care were developed. These plans of care were not always updated to reflect people�s changing care requirements.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that they were very happy with the standard of care they received. They told us that the provider was responsive and that care was designed and delivered to meet people�s individual needs. People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with the relatives of three people being supported by the service, and with one person who used the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example; �The staff are always on time�, �The programme of care is an individualised programme designed around my relative�s needs.� One person who used the service told us, �They are fabulous; they have given me my life back.�

When speaking with staff it was clear that they cared for the people they supported.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We reviewed the records of complaints and found that they had been investigated and responded to in line with the provider�s complaints policy.

People using the service and their relatives had completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.

The service had recorded the details of accidents and incidents that had occurred but we found that whilst they had investigated the cause of accident and incident they had not documented their improvement actions.

Is the service well-led?

We found that regular staff meetings had taken place and the records showed that the issues discussed related to how the service was run and how care had been delivered.

The service had a quality assurance system. However, records showed that incidents identified and actions put in place to prevent re occurrence had not always been documented.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.