We carried out a review of the data available to us about Favoured Health Care CIC 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 Favoured Health Care CIC, you can give feedback on this service.
Favoured Health Care CIC is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 18 mostly older people were receiving personal care from this home care agency. Most people using the service were also living with dementia.
People’s experience of using this service
People using the service and their relatives told us they remained happy with the standard of home care service they or their loved one received from this agency. People told us staff continued to treat them or their loved one with compassion and respect.
The service had safeguarding procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of how to manage risk and keep people safe. Appropriate staff recruitment checks took place before new staff started working for the service. Staff scheduled visits were well-coordinated. People received they medicines as they were prescribed. The service had procedures in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.
Staff received training and support that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities. Staff routinely sought the consent of the people they supported ensuring they had maximum choice and control of over their lives. Where staff were responsible for this, people were supported to maintain a nutritionally well-balanced diet. People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access community-based health care support as and when required.
Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. People were also treated equally and had their human rights and diversity respected, including their spiritual and cultural needs. People were encouraged and supported to develop their independent living skills. Assessments of people’s support needs were carried out before they started using the service.
People’s care plans were developed from these assessments and routinely reviewed to ensure they remained up to date. People had been consulted about their support needs, preferences and choices. This involvement ensured their expressed wishes were included in their personalised care plan. People were satisfied with the way the provider dealt with their concerns and complaints. People’s end of life care wishes were recorded in their care plan.
The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people using the service, their relatives and staff. The provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service people received. The provider worked in close partnership with other health and social care professionals and agencies to plan and deliver people’s packages of care and support.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at the last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 5 January 2017).
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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
We did not identify any further breaches at the last inspection we found some aspects of the service were inconsistent. There were gaps in employment checks undertaken by the provider, some aspects of medicines management did not reflect best practice, some records lacked detailed information to enable staff to deliver support that was person centred and the provider did not always ensure decisions about people’s care and support were made by appropriate members of staff.
Favoured Health Care CIC is a small domiciliary care agency which provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people receiving personal care from this service, the majority of whom were funded by their local authority. People using the service were mostly older adults who had a wide range of healthcare needs and conditions. The package of care and support provided to each person varied between a few hours a week to several times a day, depending on their specific needs.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run.
At this inspection we found the provider had taken the necessary action to make the improvements needed to meet legal requirements. We found the provider had improved their arrangements to monitor and assess the quality of the service. Senior staff undertook and documented outcomes from regular spot checks (home visits) and used this information to support staff to improve their work based practice.
We found improvements had been made to the quality of the records maintained by the service. Staff now had better information through people’s support plans to enable them to deliver care that was personalised and reflective of what people wanted. Reviews of people’s care and support needs were undertaken regularly and only by an appropriate member of staff.
The provider had improved their recruitment practices. Appropriate employment and criminal records checks had been carried out for all new staff to ensure they were suitable and fit to work for the service.
We also found improvements had been made to the way staff recorded information about medicines. A new recording mechanism had been introduced which enabled clearer, accountable records to be maintained when medicines had been administered.
Relatives said their family members were safe when being supported by staff. Staff were supported to take appropriate action to ensure people were protected if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or being harmed by discriminatory behaviour or practices. Risk of injury or harm posed to people by their specific healthcare needs and home environment had been assessed. Plans were in place for staff to follow on how to minimise identified risks to keep people safe.
Relatives said staff attended scheduled visits on time. This indicated there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager planned all scheduled visits to take full account of people’s specific care and support needs, to ensure appropriately skilled staff were assigned to meet these safely. The registered manager, wherever possible, scheduled visits so that people received support from the same members of staff, in order to experience consistency and continuity in their care.
Relatives said staff were able to meet their family member’s needs. They told us staff were caring and respectful. People’s right to privacy and to be treated with dignity was maintained by staff, particularly when receiving personal care. People were encouraged to do as much as they could and wanted to do for themselves to retain control and independence.
We checked whether the service continued to work within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff were fully aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Act. Staff received training to meet people’s needs. Training was in areas and topics relevant to their work. The provider monitored training to ensure staff skills and knowledge were kept up to date. Staff received regular supervision so that they were appropriately supported to care for people.
People were supported by staff to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff helped people to take their prescribed medicines when they needed these. They monitored people’s general health and wellbeing and where they had any issues or concerns about this they took appropriate action so that attention could be sought promptly from the relevant healthcare professionals. Where the service was responsible for this, people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.
Relatives were satisfied with the care and support their family members received. The provider continued to maintain arrangements for dealing with people’s complaints or concerns if these should arise. The provider used quality surveys and people’s views obtained through spot checks to assess and review the quality of service people experienced.
Records of events and incidents maintained by the service matched the information we held on our records. This indicated the provider met their legal obligation with regard the submission of statutory notifications.
Favoured Health CIC is a small domiciliary care agency which provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were two people receiving personal care from this service, which they were funding directly. The service had only recommenced providing regular care and support packages to people from September 2015. Prior to this date this had been provided intermittently.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run.
During this inspection we found the provider in breach of their legal requirement to operate an effective system to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service. We also found they had not maintained up to date, accurate records relating to people, staff and to the management of the service.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The provider had not always followed good recruitment practices to ensure people were always cared for by suitable staff. We found gaps in the checks the provider undertook to ensure new staff were suitable and fit to work for the service. However there were enough staff available to meet the needs of people using the service. Relatives told us their family members experienced continuity and consistency as they had regular staff that supported them.
Staff were not following the provider’s medicines policy for recording medicines that had been administered. They did not ensure there was a clear record and accountability for how, when and by whom medicines had been administered. However, people received their medicines as prescribed.
Staff received appropriate training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to support people. However the provider did not have a formal programme of supervision in place to ensure people were cared for by staff who were appropriately supported in their roles.
Prior to using the service, senior staff assessed the care and support people needed. People and their relatives were involved in these discussions. People's care plans reflected what was agreed. Not all plans contained detailed information about people to ensure care and support was provided in a person centred way. Senior staff reviewed people’s care and support needs but the provider did not ensure a clear and transparent record was maintained through which it could be evidenced that decisions were made by appropriate members of staff.
Relatives told us their family members were safe when receiving care and support from staff. Staff had been trained to know what action to take to ensure people were protected if they suspected they were at risk of abuse. Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed by senior staff. Staff were given guidance on how to minimise any identified risks to keep people safe from harm or injury.
People’s consent to care was sought prior to care and support being provided. Where people were unable to make specific decisions about their care and support because they lacked capacity to do so, people's relatives and other professionals were involved in making these, in their best interests.
People were supported to stay healthy and well. Staff monitored that they ate and drank sufficient amounts and their overall health and wellbeing. Where they had any issues or concerns about this they took appropriate action so that support could be sought promptly from the relevant healthcare professionals.
Relatives said staff were kind, caring and treated people with respect. People’s right to privacy and dignity was respected and maintained by staff, particularly when receiving personal care. People’s beliefs, choices and rights were upheld by staff so that they were treated fairly and in a non-discriminatory way.
Relatives told us they were satisfied with the care and support provided to their family members. They told us senior staff were open, approachable and receptive to their views and feedback about the service. Relatives said they were comfortable raising any issues or concerns they had directly with senior staff and felt these would be taken seriously. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to deal with people’s complaints appropriately.
The provider welcomed external scrutiny and challenge of the service. They used this as a driver for improvement and implemented changes where these were needed.