You are here

Care 4 U Services (Lincs) Limited Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16, 17 June 2014
Date of Publication: 26 June 2014
Inspection Report published 26 June 2014 PDF | 81.75 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 16, 17 June 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection there were 32 people who received a service in their own homes. A single inspector carried out this inspection.

As part of our inspection we visited the provider’s office and looked at management records, care records and other documentation.

During our inspection we spoke with nine people who received care. We also spoke with the owner of the service, the registered manager and eight staff members who provided support for people.

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we found, the records we looked at and what people who used the service, their relatives and staff told us.

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

Is the service safe?

The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to help people take their medicines safely. One person told us, “There is a care plan here in my home. It tells the staff how to help me and they have really got to grips with my medication routines.”

We found staff had identified and assessed any potential risks together with the person and their representative to identify how risks could be reduced and managed. Individual risk assessments took account of the environment within people’s homes as well as their care and support needs.

People also told us they felt safe when staff visited them. One person said. “I like it that staff wear uniforms and have proper name badges with pictures so we can check on who they (staff) are.”

Is the service effective?

We found up to date and clear care plans were in place to meet people’s needs. People and staff who worked with them were involved in developing the care plans and agreeing any changes together.

One person told us, “I have found they usually turn up on time. The communication is excellent if they are late and they deal with any issues quickly. I don’t know as I would ever want to change from this service.”

Is the service caring?

We saw that people's individual needs were assessed and met. This also included people's individual choices and preferences about how they wanted to be cared for.

We spoke with people who were supported by the service and asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example, one person we spoke with said, “They are so caring. They stay for the time needed. I have used two different companies in the past and they aren’t a scratch on this one.” Another person said, “They (staff) can sometimes run a little late but they always ring me to confirm. The staff care about me being kept in the loop.”

Is the service responsive?

We saw people were supported to have the care they needed, when they needed it. One person told us, “The service is good. They took over about a week ago when I needed help quickly after coming out of hospital. They came to see me and we talk about what I wanted. I have a folder with my information in it and the staff check this every time.”

Where any changes to visit times or to care needs had been identified, the manager and staff acted promptly to respond to the changes provide the care and update people’s records.

The provider had a complaints policy in place to make sure complaints were investigated within the timescales set and in the right way. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and the manager responded quickly to any concerns raised with them.

Is the service well led?

The provider worked well with other agencies and services to ensure people received their care in a joined up way. The manager had a quality assurance process in place with records which showed that any shortfalls identified were addressed.

Staff were supported with supervision and provided with a set period of induction when they started to work for the agency. Staff also received regular training in subjects directly related to meeting people’s needs.

Staff said they felt supported by the management structures in place and were clear about their responsibilities and roles. This helped ensure people received a consistent service.