You are here

Care 4 U Wolverhampton Limited Outstanding

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Care 4 U Wolverhampton Limited on 9 September 2021. 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 Care 4 U Wolverhampton Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 16 March 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced site inspection on 16 March 2018. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using Care 4 U Wolverhampton receives a regulated activity; 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.

This service was last inspected in August 2015 and was rated as ‘good’ in all domains; Since this inspection the registered office has changed address. However the provider and staff remain the same.

At the time of our inspection, 30 people were supported with their personal care needs by the service. There was a registered manager in post. 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 were extremely positive about the care provided by the service and said that they felt safe receiving care in their homes. Staff recognised the signs of potential abuse and knew the reporting system to keep people safe. People were placed at the centre of their care and their risks were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure care remained appropriate to meet their needs. There were sufficient numbers of trained staff who had the appropriate recruitment checks to ensure they were suitable for their role. Staff arrived on time for their visits and the right numbers of staff were available to provide the support people needed. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who had been assessed as competent to give people’s medicines safely.

People and their relatives were involved in all decisions about how they wanted their care and support needs met. People spoke positively about the professional relationships they had with staff. Staff ensured people consented to the care they received and were aware of how to respect people’s choices and rights. People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and were encouraged to have a balanced diet. People were supported to access healthcare services when required.

Everyone said staff went above and beyond what was expected from them. People and their relatives spoke extremely positively about the outstanding care they received and referred to staff and the provider as being extremely kind, caring and friendly. People were placed at the centre of their care and people told us they felt listened to and valued by staff by the staff who supported them. People told us staff always respected their privacy and dignity when providing care and where supported to develop their independence.

People were encouraged to give their feedback and views about the quality of the service they received. Communication systems used to share information about people’s care and support needs were effective. Staff had an excellent understanding of what was important to people and delivered care in a way they wished to receive care. Care records were personalised, regularly reviewed and updated to ensure they were reflective of people’s current needs. There was a system in place to record and investigate concerns and issues were dealt with appropriately.

People said the service was very well run. The provider was passionate about providing person centred care. The leadership within the service was strong and an open and a positive culture was promoted. People were supported by caring committed staff. Staff said they felt valued and were listened to by the provider. Staff were confident in their roles and were aware of their responsibilities and said they had access to suppor

Inspection carried out on 12 August 2015

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of Care 4 U on 12 August 2015.

Care 4 U provides personal care for people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people receiving the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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.

All people we spoke with were consistently positive about their experiences of the service, its staff and its management.

People told us they felt safe with staff and that staff delivered safe care. Relatives told us they had confidence in staff. Staff were aware of how to report issues of safety to appropriate agencies and keep people safe. The registered manager ensured staff had access to up to date guidance on keeping people safe.

The provider had assessed people’s care for possible risks and sought to minimise these risks through appropriate care planning. The provider ensured that staff knew how to safely use equipment during people’s care.

People received visits from staff on time and for the full length of time agreed. The provider had a system in place to ensure staff who were on leave would be covered, even at short notice. This meant that people did not experience missed visits.

The provider used safe recruitment processes to ensure staff were of appropriate character to care for people. Staff supported people with their medicines in a safe way.

Staff received support and training that meant they were skilled in important areas of care. Staff received appropriate support from the management team. The provider cooperated with external healthcare professionals in order to support people’s well-being.

Staff knew how to support people’s choices and human rights. People told us staff offered them choice and respected their choices.

People described the registered manager and staff as offering a high standard of compassionate care. People gave us a number of examples of staff going ‘the extra mile’ and demonstrating a highly caring attitude. Some people told us the service offered the best care they had ever experienced.

The provider sought people’s opinions about the service, listened to people and sought to improve the provision of care. People receiving the service remained the main focus of the provider. People received care from a consistent staff group who provided continuity of care.

Staff promoted people’s dignity, privacy and independence. Care plans supported staff with detailed guidance about how to achieve this for each person.

People’s care was regularly reviewed and updated to ensure they received care which met their needs. Care planning acknowledged people’s strengths and aspirations, as well as areas they required more support in. Relatives and people who were important to those receiving the service were appropriately involved in people’s care. They were supported by the service to maintain their involvement. People knew how they could raise issues with the provider, although no one told us they had reason to raise a complaint.

People and staff were positive about the culture of the service and told us the service was well managed. Management listened to people and staff in order to improve the service. There were some shortfalls in the formal recording of checks and audits which the provider carried out. However, we saw evidence of new systems and records being introduced to address these areas.

Staff cooperated with other agencies in order to improve people’s health and well-being.