We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rainbow Social Care Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rainbow Social Care Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Rainbow Social Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults, people living with dementia, physical and learning disability and sensory impairments. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with the regulated activity ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Not everyone using the service receives the regulated activity. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 16 people.
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.
At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People felt safe while supported by the staff. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents or concerns. Staff had the knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and acted on these to keep people safe.
Staff training records indicated which training was considered mandatory. The registered manager and senior staff had planned and booked training when necessary to ensure all staff had the appropriate knowledge to support people. Staff had ongoing support via regular supervision and appraisals. They felt supported by the registered manager and maintained great team work. People were very complimentary of the staff and the support and care they provided.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their individual needs. People were informed about the changes to their visits as necessary. The service had an appropriate recruitment procedure to follow before new staff were employed to work with people. They checked to ensure staff were of good character and suitable for their role.
People were treated with respect, and their privacy and dignity were promoted. People and relatives felt the staff supported them in the way they wanted. Staff were responsive to the needs of the people and enabled them to improve and maintain their independence with personal care.
The staff monitored people's health and wellbeing and took appropriate action when required to address concerns. The service assessed risks to people's personal safety, as well as staff and visitors, and plans were in place to minimise those risks. There were safe medicines administration systems in place and people received their medicines when required.
People received support that was individualised to their specific needs and were kept under review and amended as changes occurred. People's rights to make their own decisions, where possible, were protected and respected. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to ensure people's rights were promoted.
Staff felt the registered manager was supportive and approachable. They had good communication, worked well together and supported each other, which benefitted the people. The registered manager had quality assurance systems put in place to monitor the running of the service and the quality of the service being delivered. The registered manager was able to identify issues and improvements necessary and action was being taken to address these. They praised the staff team for their dedication and hard work and appreciated their contribution to ensure people received the best care and support.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Rainbow Social Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our visit the service supported 13 people. The service is based in an office on the first floor of a building. The office is accessible via a passenger lift and there are also accessible toilet facilities.
There was a registered manager in post who was present during the inspection. 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.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. There were processes in place to keep people safe and minimise any risks that may arise in the course of delivering care to them. This included the completion of risk assessments and checks on staff. Staff demonstrated an in-depth understanding of what may constitute signs of abuse and knew how to respond to such signs.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The provider had completed checks on new workers to ensure that they were safe and suitable to provide care to people who use the service. People were supported by the same group of staff as far as possible, ensuring continuity and consistency of the care. Moreover, such practice enabled staff to gain knowledge about the individuals they were caring for. As a result, these factors contributed to enhancing the quality of the care. The service had quality assurances processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service that people received.
Medicines were administered by appropriately trained staff who were aware of the potential risks involved in medicine handling. Care workers had received training to administer medicines safely, which included checks on their competence. They recorded the medicine dosage and times of their administration by signing a medicine administration record (MAR) sheet. MAR sheets were checked by care workers during their visits and by senior staff during spot checks for any gaps or errors. Completed MARs were returned to the office every month for auditing.
The culture was open and staff were encouraged to raise their concerns if they witnessed any incidents of malpractice. Staff members told us they felt they worked in a safe environment and they could always contact the manager for support and advice.
People using the service, their relatives and staff said the registered manager was approachable and supportive. The manager actively sought feedback from all parties involved in running the service in order to develop and improve it.
The registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had received training in this area to meet people’s care needs. Staff had also received awareness training in the Mental Capacity Act.
Each staff member had received induction and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. Staff were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. Appropriately recruited and trained, they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s varying support needs.
People were offered support concerning their nutrition, and the support suited people’s specific needs. People had access to health and social care arranged as needed.
People told us that their privacy and dignity were respected, and that their support was provided in a caring, considerate and a patient way. Staff understood people’s preferences, likes and dislikes.
Staff sought people’s consent before supporting them and encouraged them to make decisions for themselves. When people refused to be supported, their choice was respected. If some people had difficulty communicating verbally, staff would look for other forms of communication, such as body language, gestures or writing things down for people. As some people did not communicate in English, they were supported by staff members who spoke their native language.
A complaints procedure was in place, enabling people to raise their concerns at any time.