We carried out a review of the data available to us about G&P Healthcare 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 G&P Healthcare Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
G&P Healthcare Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing personal and nursing care to people living in their own homes. There were seven people receiving the regulated activity of personal care at the time of our inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were cared for safely and staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from abuse or harm. Risk assessments were completed and ensured staff knew what to do to minimise the risks identified. Where people received support with their medicines this was done following safe practice guidelines. There were effective practices in place to protect people from infection.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff received the support they required and had access to training.
Staff were kind, caring and motivated in their work. People told us they were supported in a way that ensured they felt in control of their care and staff were respectful. People's dignity and privacy was maintained.
People had individualised care plans which ensured they received person-centred care. Plans considered people's preferences, likes and dislikes and their cultural and religious backgrounds.
People knew who to speak to raise concerns and had experience of being listened to. Staff were described as patient and caring.
The registered manager was open and transparent in the way they worked with staff and other organisations. They looked at ways to improve the service. Staff felt well supported and people were confident in the service. Staff liaised with other health professionals and looked at ways to improve people's life experiences.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The last rating for this service was good (published 1 October 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up.
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
A registered manager was in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff had awareness of people's health care needs so they were in a position to refer them to health care professionals if needed. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.
People and children had received personal care at the assessed and agreed times to promote their health and welfare.
Risk assessments were in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare.
Relatives we spoke with said they thought the service ensured that people received safe personal care. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and staff understood their responsibilities in this area.
We saw that medicines were supplied safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs.
Staff had training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to be able to meet people's needs.
Staff, in the main, understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives.
Relatives we spoke with told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring.
Relatives, and people using the service where as much as possible, had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was to be provided.
Care plans were individual to the people using the service to ensure that their individual needs were met, though they lacked some personal information about lifestyles to fully ensure that an fully individual service could be provided.
Relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns and they were confident these would be properly followed up.
People and their relatives were satisfied with how the service was run and staff felt they were fully supported in their work by the registered manager.
Management carried out audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service, though robust systems were not fully in place.