You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 October 2017

This inspection was announced and took place on 27 March 2017.

There was a registered manager who had been 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.

The service provides personal care for people with a learning disability in their home.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe when receiving support from the agency. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to any signs of abuse.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed to minimise risks. Staff followed any risk management plans in place for people.

Medicines were managed safely and stored securely. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP.

Staff knew people well and understood their needs and the way they communicated. People received care and support in a personalised way. This meant people were able to increase their independence, achieve and try new experiences. The impact this had on the individuals was outstanding and had resulted in them being settled, content and calm and helped them to lead full and active lives.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People and staff had good relationships. People were supported to take part in activities and try new experiences and to access the community.

People received the health, personal and social care support they needed. People’s health conditions were monitored to make sure they kept well.

Staff received an induction, core training and some specialist training so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and people were involved in the recruitment of staff. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

The service was very well-managed with a clear management structure in place so that people received a personalised service.

There were systems in place to monitor and drive improvements in the safety and quality of the service provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were managed safely.

Staff knew how to recognise and report any allegations of abuse.

Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to make sure people had the care and support they needed.

Any risks to people were identified and managed in order to keep people safe.



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training to ensure they could carry out their roles effectively.

Staff had an understanding of The Mental Capacity Act 2005. There was a plan in place to ensure decisions were in people�s best interests.

People were offered a variety of choice of food and drink. People were involved in food preparation.

People accessed the services of healthcare professionals as appropriate.



Updated 18 October 2017

The staff were caring.

Staff were genuinely caring and kind, they treated people with patience and were aware of their needs.

People and staff enjoyed each other�s company. Staff were proud of people�s achievements.

Staff provided care in a dignified manner and respected people�s right to privacy.



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People received individualised care that was tailored to their needs. The service was creative in enabling people to live as full a life as possible.

Staff were flexible and responsive to providing person centred care which improved people's well-being.

Innovative ways of involving people were used so that people were at the heart of everything.

People were listened to and their comments acted upon.



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was well led.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people and their representatives. Actions were taken in response to any feedback or shortfalls identified.

There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.

There was learning from accidents, incident and investigations into allegations of abuse.