You are here


Inspection carried out on 21 March 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 21 March 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides domiciliary care and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office.

Divine Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care service providing care and support to people living in their own homes. The office is based in the city of Leicester and the service currently provides care and support to people living in Leicester. At the time of our inspection there were two people using the service.

Divine Homecare Limited had 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 told us they felt safe using the service. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training and knew what to do if they had concerns about the well being of any of the people using the service.

Staff understood risk and how they should respond to reduce this to promote people's safety and welfare. However when we looked at people's care records they did not include any recorded risk assessments to manage risks to the person's health and well being or environment. The provider told us that they would ensure risk assessments were recorded with care plans.

People said they thought staff were well-trained and knew how to support them effectively. Care staff had a thorough induction and on-going training to keep their skills up to date. Staff were safely recruited to help ensure they were suitable to work with people who used the service. Staff received support through meetings and formal and informal supervision.

Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and sought consent from people before providing care. Further action was needed to ensure staff fully understood the MCA and their responsibilities in supporting people to make decisions and choices.

People told us that care staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People had consistent, reliable carers. This enabled people to get to know the staff who supported them.

People were directly involved in the development of their care and encouraged to be independent and make choices about how they wanted their support provided.

Staff provided a personalised service that was responsive to people's needs. However the service had not developed care plans for the people who used the service. The registered manager told us that information was always provided verbally to care staff before they began to support a person. However, due to lack of appropriate records, we could not be confident that people’s care had been designed to achieve their preferences and ensure their needs were met. The registered manager said they would address this.

People and their relatives knew how to complain, however no complaints had been received by the registered provider at the time of our inspection.

There were regular opportunities for staff to provide feedback about people's care through attending team meetings.

People told us the registered manager and registered provider often visited them and spoke to them in person to check on their well being and monitor their care and support. However the provider did not have an effective or robust quality assurance programme in place to check people received good care. The provider told us they were in the process of introducing systems to assess and monitor the quality of care in the service.