Angels Domiciliary Care Limited Also known as Angels South East London

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first inspection for this service. This key question was rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.People told us they felt supported to manage their own health needs, and the registered manager would always help if needed. For example, a person was using equipment that was no longer suitable for their needs. The registered manager suggested an alternative and aided the person in obtaining a suitable replacement. Relatives fed back that the registered managers intervention had made their lives easier. People felt that staff understood their needs. A relative told us of a member of staff who had noticed a person’s prescribed cream was “too greasy.” The member of staff spoke to the person and their relative and suggested they get this reviewed. This led to the person being prescribed a less greasy cream more suited to their needs. The relative told us, “This works so much better, [staff] are so helpful.” Care plans documented people’s physical health, wellbeing and communication needs. The care plan was reviewed with people and their relatives on a regular basis. This ensured people continuously received a good quality of care appropriate to them and their needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The registered manager showed an understanding of current legislation and guidance in relation to delivering good care, treatment and support. Policies reflected the service was aware of current and up to date guidance. Policies contained links to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and CQC guidance so staff could fully research and understand the reasons why policies were implemented and how these worked to keep people safe. Staff had completed a range of training courses to ensure they were well equipped to keep people safe. These courses included safeguarding adults, mental capacity and health and safety. Care plans documented people’s nutrition and hydration support needs where required. People told us they though staff knew what they were doing and understood how to care for them, so people were protected from the risk of avoidable harm.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff told us information sharing was effective, the registered manager kept them up to date with important information by emails and phone calls. Staff had access to people’s care plans on electronic devices. These were also available in paper format in people’s homes. People felt there was effective information sharing between staff, and all staff that supported them knew them well to do so appropriately. People told us staff got on well and worked well together. One member of staff told us, “Communication is good, and we all get along really well with one another.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s health care concerns and were able to recognise signs of health decline. For example, on a care visit staff noticed a change in a person’s behaviour. The registered manager was notified. The registered manager shared the concerns raised with the person and sought consent to contact the GP. The GP diagnosed the person had an infection which had affected their behaviour. Staff had access to review people’s care plans before each care visit to ensure they were aware of any updates or changes. Care plans and risk assessments were robust and reviewed regularly so staff knew how to support people with living healthier lives.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Care plans documented people’s aspirations in relation to care and social need goals. People told us staff were supportive in helping them achieve positive outcomes for their futures. An example of this was a person who required a high number of hours of support each week when the service began to deliver care to them. The provider worked with external agencies to provide the best quality care. The intervention reduced the person’s care dependency and helped them to live a more independent life in their own home. The registered manager contacted people on a regular basis to check there were no issues and people remained happy with the care they received.

The provider carefully explained to people what their rights around consent were, made sure they fully understood them and always fully respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff always sought consent before they began to deliver personal care. A member of staff said, “I talk through every step I am going to do with personal care, even if I have done the same thing many times before. I always get consent before I continue.” People told us staff were friendly and professional, and they felt their views and wishes were considered. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were able to explain their understanding of this. One member of staff told us, “You have to assume people have capacity to make decisions. If people want to make what we would think a bad decision, we have to support them to do this safely.”