You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 31 July 2018

We carried out an announced inspection of Admiral Care Limited on 22 June 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It offers personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older and younger adults, people living with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health, people who misuse drugs and alcohol, people with eating disorders, people with physical disability and people with sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 68 people using the service.

Not everyone using Admiral Care Limited receives regulated activity; the CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

At the last inspection, in June2017 the service had been rated 'Requires Improvement'. At this inspection, we found evidence the service had improved to support the rating of good and there was no evidence that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

People were kept safe from abuse and harm and staff knew how to report any suspicions concerning abuse. Risk assessments identified how potential risks should be managed to reduce the likelihood of people experiencing harm. Staff understood the risks to people and delivered safe care in accordance with people’s support plans.

Incidents and accidents were recorded appropriately and investigated where necessary. If learning resulted in changes to support plans or support guidelines, these were discussed and action was taken to reduce the risk of further incidents and accidents.

Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the service. People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who had been suitably trained and had their competency checked.

People's medicines were managed safely. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

Staff received effective training to meet people's needs. An induction and training programme was in place for all staff. A detailed assessment was carried out to assess people's needs and preferences prior to them receiving a service.

The management team effectively operated a system of spot checks, supervision, appraisal and monthly team meetings which supported staff to deliver care based on best practice.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 and we found people's human rights were recognised and protected.

People were protected from the risk of malnutrition and supported to eat a healthy diet of their choice by staff who had completed training in food hygiene and safety.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day support. People's dignity and privacy were respected and upheld, and staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

People's care records were person-centred and staff provided people with support in line with people’s preferences. People were consulted about their diverse needs which were respected by all staff.

People had access to a complaints procedure and were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon.

The registered manager carried out their role in line with their registration with the CQC. They ensured all notifiable incidents were reported to the CQC. Staff respected the registered manager who encouraged them to carry out their role in line with provider's aims and values. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included seeking and responding to feedback from people and their relatives in relation to the standard of care and support.

Inspection areas



Updated 31 July 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding any possible abuse.

Staff were recruited appropriately and adequate numbers were on duty to meet people's needs. However, some relatives told us staff had not always visited people on time.

People had risk assessments in place to ensure risks were minimised and managed.

There were appropriate arrangements for the safe handling and management of medicines.



Updated 31 July 2018

The service was effective.

People's care and support needs were assessed and reflected in support records.

Staff received up-to-date training and appropriate support through supervision and appraisal meetings.

Staff had a clear understanding of the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to practice.

People were supported to access healthcare services. The provider sought appropriate support and guidance from healthcare professionals when required.



Updated 31 July 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect.

We observed people being treated with kindness and compassion.

People were involved in planning their care and support.



Updated 31 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Personalised care plans were in place and people told us staff provided them with care and support that met their needs.

There were mixed views about the range of activities offered to people.

People were encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints. People's feedback was valued and people felt that when they raised issues, these were dealt with in an open and honest way.



Updated 31 July 2018

The service was well-led.

Staff told us the recent changes in the management structure had boosted their morale. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

People using the service and their relatives spoke positively about the management team.

The provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided to people. On-going audits were used to improve the support people received.