You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The inspection took place on 28 October 2016 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care and we needed to be sure that they would be available. This was the first inspection of this service since it registered with us in May 2015.

Lily Healthcare Limited is registered to provide personal care services to adults in their own homes. On the day of the inspection one person was in receipt of a service. There was a registered manager in post who was also the provider. 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.

Care staff were knowledgeable about how to keep the person safe and recognize the different forms of abuse and the action to take. Care staff were supported to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

The provider ensured the Mental Capacity Act (2005) was being adhered to. Care staff had received the appropriate training so they would know how not to restrict people who lacked capacity. The person’s consent was sought before they were supported.

The service was delivered in a way that enabled people to make decisions on how they were supported along with their wishes being acknowledged. People’s dignity, privacy and independence was respected.

The support provided was as requested and the provider had a complaints procedure in place so complaints could be raised.

The provider did not keep sufficient records in the office to show how the service was being managed. Where an accident took place there was no system for recording these or monitoring them for trends.

The provider had a system in place so people’s views could be gathered on the service they received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was safe.

The person receiving a service felt safe.

There was sufficient care staff available to meet the person’s needs.

The provider had a recruitment process in place to be able to employ suitable care staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was effective.

Care staff were able to get support when needed so they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs, however the care certificate was not being used as part of the induction process.

People’s consent was being sought. The provider ensured care staff had appropriate guidance on the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Caring

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was caring.

Care staff were caring and kind.

Care staff ensured the person’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected in all aspects of care provision.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People were involved in the care planning process so their wishes were reflected in how they were supported.

The provider had a compliment and complaints process in place, but an appropriate system to log and monitor complaints was needed.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was not always well led.

There was no evidence of sufficient records being kept in the office to show how the service was managed.

The provider had no accident book in place to log accidents and be able to monitor any trends.

The provider had the appropriate systems in place to gather views on the service being delivered.

The provider carried out checks on the quality of the service provided.