You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 January 2017

We carried out an inspection of City of London on 13 December 2016. This was an announced inspection where we gave the provider less than 24 hours’ notice because we needed to ensure someone would be available to speak with us.

City of London is a local authority based in the city of London. City of London has a re-ablement service providing personal care to the residents of city of London in their own home. The service offers support to people that had just left hospital or were recovering from a recent illness or injury. The service provides short-term, intensive support to help people with everyday tasks that includes personal care. At the time of our inspection there were three people who received personal care and support from two re-ablement care staff.

The service was last inspected on 2 September 2014 and was meeting the required standards at the time of the inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Risk assessments had been completed in full for most people that identified risks and provided information on how to mitigate those risks. Falls risk assessment had not been completed for one person at risk of falls. This was completed promptly during the inspection.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. People and relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the support received from the service and they felt safe around staff. Staff knew how to identify abuse, the different types of abuse and how to report abuse.

Staff had been trained on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and knew the principles of the act. Care plans detailed people’s capacity and limitations to make decisions.

Internal audits were being carried out on care plans, which listed the findings and follow up actions required. Quality assurance meetings were held with management for service improvements.

Staff told us they were supported by the management team and had received regular supervision. Records confirmed this.

Team meetings were being held and recorded.

Staff had regular training in key area’s to ensure knowledge and skills were kept up to date.

People we spoke to told us that staff communicated well with them and with their family members. People’s ability to communicate were recorded in their care plans.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs.

Pre-employment checks had been undertaken to ensure staff were suitable for the role.

There was a formal complaints procedure and a complaints booklet that was provided to people. Staff knew how to respond to complaints.

People were encouraged to be independent and their privacy and dignity was maintained.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 January 2017

The service was safe.

Risk assessments had been completed for most people. However, risk assessment had not been carried out for one person at risk of falls. This risk assessment was completed promptly during the inspection.

Staff knew the different types of abuse and who to report abuse to. People told us they felt safe around staff.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were fit to undertake their roles and there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people's needs.

Staff only prompted people to take medicines and did not administer medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained in MCA and knew the principles of the Act.

Staff told us they received supervision and were supported.

Staff had received an induction. Records showed that staff had regularly undertaken mandatory training.

Staff knew the signs and how to support people if they were unwell.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 January 2017

The service was caring.

People told us that staff were caring and respected people�s privacy and dignity.

Staff had good knowledge and understanding of people�s background and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 January 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans included people's care and support needs and staff followed these plans.

There was a complaint system in place. Staff were able to tell us how they would respond to complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 January 2017

The service was well-led.

Quality assurance systems were in place to make continuous improvements.

Quality monitoring systems were in place that requested people�s feedback on the service. The results were positive.

Staff were supported by management.