You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 March 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 21 and 22 February 2018 and was announced. At the last comprehensive inspection on 21 and 22 December 2016 we found one breach of the regulations relating to good governance and the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. We also made one recommendation in relation to the safe management of people’s medicines. We asked them to send in an action plan of how they were going to meet the regulation. At this inspection we saw that improvements had been made.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection they were supporting 22 people in the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Southwark, Newham, Redbridge and Barking and Dagenham. Not everyone using Peoples Care Limited receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

All of the people using the service were funded by the local authority and were able to choose their service provider with the use of direct payments. A direct payment is the amount of money that the local authority has to pay to meet the needs of people and is given to them to purchase services that will meet their needs.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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’s risks were managed and care plans contained appropriate risk assessments which were updated regularly when people’s needs changed. The registered manager had produced guidance for care workers to follow that had been translated into Bengali to ensure they understood how to keep people safe.

The provider had a robust recruitment process and staff had the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service. People had regular care workers to ensure they received consistent levels of care.

The provider had a medicines policy in place where care workers were only allowed to prompt people with their medicines. Improvements had been made since the last inspection on how people’s medicines were recorded.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that they felt safe using the service. All staff had a good understanding of how to identify and report any concerns and were confident that any concerns would be investigated and dealt with.

Care workers received an induction and training programme to support them in meeting people’s needs. They shadowed more experienced staff before they started to deliver personal care and were introduced to people before starting work with them. Staff felt supported and were happy with the supervision they received and the content of the training available.

The provider understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was aware of the processes to follow if they had concerns about people’s capacity. People and their relatives told us that staff respected their decisions and gained consent before carrying out care tasks.

We saw that care workers notified the management team and people’s relatives if they had any concerns about people’s health. We also saw people were supported to maintain their health and well-being through access to health and social care professionals, such as occupational therapists, advocates and district nurses.

Care workers were aware of people’s dietary needs and food preferences and this was highlighted in people’s care records.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support, in accordance with their wishes. People and their relatives told us that advocacy support and staff being able to interpret on their behalf helped them in their day to day lives.

People and their relatives told us that staff were kind and compassionate, respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. There was evidence that language and cultural requirements were considered when carrying out the assessments and allocating care workers to people using the service. We received positive feedback from people, their relatives and staff about the importance of being able to communicate with each other in their own language.

People were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. An initial assessment was completed from which care plans and risk assessments were developed. Care was personalised and the provider listened to people to be as flexible as possible when trying to meet their needs.

People were provided with information on how to make a complaint and felt comfortable raising concerns if they needed to. There were surveys in place to allow people and their relatives the opportunity to feedback about the care and treatment they received. These documents were provided in both English and Bengali.

People using the service and their relatives told us that the service was well managed and they had recommended the service to other people in the community. Staff spoke highly of the support they received to carry out their responsibilities.

There were processes in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was achieved through regular communication with people and care workers, supervision and a programme of other checks and audits, including telephone monitoring and spot checks. We saw that improvements had been made and learning had taken place since the last inspection.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 March 2018

The service was safe.

Medicines were prompted by staff who had completed training and received verbal explanations in their own language to ensure their understanding.

The provider took appropriate steps to ensure safe recruitment procedures were followed and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

Risk assessments were in place to identify the areas of risk and to reduce the likelihood of people coming to harm. Guidance for care workers had been translated into Bengali to ensure they understood how to keep people safe.

Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse and protect people from harm.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 March 2018

The service remained Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 March 2018

The service remained Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 March 2018

The service remained Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 March 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider had made the necessary improvements since the last inspection and had started to record a range of auditing and monitoring processes.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the management team and how the service was managed.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received to carry out their responsibilities.

There was visible leadership from the registered manager who understood their responsibilities and worked closely with people and staff, which gave them confidence in the service.