We carried out a review of the data available to us about Assist and Care Ltd 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 Assist and Care Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Assist and Care is a family run domiciliary care agency situated in the Didsbury area of Manchester. The service provides personal care to adults with a range of physical and mental disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were 43 people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People said they felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff had undertaken training in safeguarding and demonstrated a good knowledge of safeguarding issues and how to raise a concern.
Environmental risks were assessed, and individual risk assessments were in place within people’s care plans.
Recruitment systems were robust. There were enough staff to fulfil the commitments made by the service and people said staff always turned up, were always on time and never left early.
People were supported by staff with their medicines as required. Staff received adequate training and had a medicines competence check prior to working alone.
Staff were aware of how to control and prevent cross infection and were supplied with enough aprons and gloves to use when delivering personal care.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and followed up appropriately to help prevent further incidents happening.
Assessments were thorough and care plans included appropriate information. People’s care records included information about other professionals and agencies involved in their care and support. Visits were at least one hour long to enable the carer sufficient time to carry out all required tasks.
Staff were required to undertake a thorough induction programme and further training and refresher courses were on-going.
People’s nutritional needs, preferences and risks were fully explored and recorded clearly within their care plans. Records of meal were completed for people as and when required.
The service worked within the legal requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)
People spoke positively about the care and support received. The service had a discrimination policy, and this was discussed within training, team meetings and staff supervisions.
People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support and communication with people who used the service was good. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
Care files included information about people’s routines, backgrounds, interests and hobbies. This helped the service match staff with people who used the service and to support any community involvement.
The service had a policy and procure in place around complaints and we saw evidence of how concerns were addressed, which was effective. People were aware of how to make a complaint.
The service was prepared to work with other professionals within the community if someone was nearing the end of their life and wished to remain at home.
Notifications about changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send to CQC were submitted as required. There was an open-door policy so that people could pop in to the office whenever they wished, and staff felt well supported by the management.
Quality assurance reviews of care plans were undertaken on a quarterly basis. People who used the service were encouraged to make comments about their support. Annual reviews of care were undertaken, and medicines reviews carried out regularly.
The management were members of professional associations and worked in partnership with other agencies as required. They had good communication and engagement with the wider community.
Rating at last inspection:
The previous inspection report was published on 6 December 2016 when the service was rated Good.
Why we inspected:
This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received. Inspection timescales are based on the rating awarded at the last inspection and any information and intelligence received since we inspected. As the previous inspection was Good this meant we needed to re-inspect within approximately 30 months of this date.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the home to ensure care remains safe and of good quality. We will return to re-inspect in line with our inspection timescales for good services, however if any information of concern is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Assist and Care Ltd is a domiciliary care agency located in south Manchester. It provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 18 people were receiving personal care from the service.
The service had a registered manager. 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 we spoke with said staff at the service made them feel safe and acted professionally at all times. Risks to people using the service were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. The service was not responsible for people’s accommodation but did undertake risk assessments of people’s homes to see if any steps were needed to improve their safety.
Accidents and incidents were investigated and monitored to see if any steps were needed to improve people’s safety. Plans were in place to ensure people received a continuity of care in emergency situations that disrupted the operation of the service.
People’s medicines were managed safely. Where staff supported them people told us their medicines were managed safely. Procedures were in place to minimise the risk of abuse occurring. The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough care staff were employed to support people safely. The registered provider’s recruitment procedures minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
People and their relatives told us the service provided effective care, and that staff had the skills needed to support them. Staff received mandatory training in a wide range of areas and newly recruited staff completed an induction programme before they could provide unsupervised support to people. Staff were supported through regular supervisions and appraisals.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people received support their dietary needs and preferences were clearly recorded in their care plans. The service supported people to access community professionals to maintain and improve their health.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the support they received, describing staff as caring and kind. People and their relatives told us staff treated them with dignity and respect, including by giving them choices over the support they received.
People and their relatives told us staff were friendly but professional, and able to communicate with people well. The service kept a written record of compliments and positive feedback received from people, which were shared with staff. Procedures were in place to ensure people’s views on their care were heard through the appointment of advocates.
Care was based on people’s assessed needs and preferences and delivered in a person-centred way. Where a support need was identified a care plan was created setting out how the person wanted to be supported in each area. People and their relatives told us they were involved in planning their care, and that regular reviews took place.
Some people received support with accessing activities as part of their care. Where this was the case this was clearly recorded in their care plans, with details of how they wished to be supported. People and their relatives said they knew how to complain or raise any issues they had with the service.
Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service. There was a registered manager in post, who was also the registered provider. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager, describing them as supportive and as someone who included them in the running of the service.
The registered manager carried out a number of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service, and regularly sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff. The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken.