You are here

Community Caring Limited Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Community Caring Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 18 September 2019

About the service: Community Caring is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and other types of support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection 425 people were supported by the service. Of the 425 people supported by the service, 245 received help with personal care. The Care Quality Commission only regulates personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

The way the service managed and monitored the administration of medication was unsafe. Information on the medication people needed and the guidance given to staff with regards to their administration was inadequate. As a result, some people did not receive the correct amount of medication they needed to keep them safe and well. There were no adequate systems in place to monitor the safety of medication administration in order to protect people from avoidable harm.

Risks to people were not properly assessed and planned for and staff did not have sufficient guidance on how to care for people safely. People’s assessments and care plans regarding their care and support needs lacked important information and were not always accurate or kept up to date. This placed people at risk of receiving inappropriate and unsafe care.

The support people received was not always in accordance with what had been planned or agreed. For instance, the timing and duration of some people’s visits did not always correspond with their care plans or their agreed timetable of visits. This meant there was a risk that people did not always receive the level of support they needed. Where people needed nutritional support, their dietary records did not always show that they received adequate support to maintain their nutritional well-being.

Where people had communication needs or struggled to understand the care choices available to them staff had little guidance on how to communicate with them effectively. Information about the service was also not always available in a format people could easily understand.

Where people lived with medical conditions that may have impacted on their ability to understand and consent, it was difficult to see if any consideration had been given to the Mental Capacity Act when planning or reviewing their care. We have recommended that the provider reviews the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act to ensure the service compiles in full with this legislation.

The systems and governance arrangements in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service were ineffective. They failed to identify the areas for improvement we found at this inspection and failed to mitigate risks to people’s health, safety and welfare. We also found that although the management team were clear about their roles and responsibilities they lacked sufficient insight into the delivery of people’s care and the issues we identified at this inspection. This meant that the service was not well led.

People’s feedback on the service was positive. They told us that staff were kind, caring and patient and knew them well. Most people said they received support from the same staff team most of the time. This was good practice and enabled people to get to know and build positive relationships with the staff supporting them.

People told us their privacy and dignity were always respected and their independence promoted as much as possible. They told us they knew how to make a complaint but no--one we spoke had any complaints and were happy with the service they received.

Staff were recruited safely and received regular supervision and training. People told us they felt the staff were well trained and had the skills and knowledge to provide the support they needed. Spot checks on the competency of staff however were not always undertaken in accordance with the provider’s policy.

Throughout the inspection, the management team were open and transparent. It was obvious they were passionate about the service and committed to ma

Inspection areas



Updated 18 September 2019

The service was not safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 18 September 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 18 September 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 18 September 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 18 September 2019

The service was not always well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.