You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 December 2017

This comprehensive inspection took place on 9 November 2017 and was announced.

Shreeji Inc Limited is based in Rainham, Essex. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults.

Not everyone using Shreeji Inc 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.

At the time of our inspection, 33 people were using the service, who received personal care. The provider employed 15 care staff, who visited people living in the community.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered care homes, 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.

Staff and managers had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We have made a recommendation about the provider’s procedures on the MCA because people's capacity to make decisions and consent to their care was not always recorded clearly.

People received care at home from staff who understood their needs. They had their individual risks assessed and staff were aware of how to manage these risks.

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were able to identify different types of abuse and knew how to report any concerns.

The provider had sufficient numbers of staff available to provide care and support to people. Staff had been recruited following criminal background checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service, to ensure they were safe and of good character.

Staff provided safe care in people’s homes. Staff had received training on handling medicines. When required, staff administered people’s medicines and recorded medicines that they administered on people's Medicine Administration Records (MAR).

Staff received training that was required for them to be able to carry out their roles effectively. They told us that they received support and encouragement from the registered manager. Senior managers took action where necessary to improve staff performance.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs. They were registered with health care professionals and staff contacted them in emergencies.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity were maintained. They were listened to by staff and were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Care plans were person centred and provided staff with sufficient information about each person’s individual preferences and how staff should meet these to obtain positive outcomes for each person.

People were able to access information they were able to understand to help keep them informed and safe. A complaints procedure was in place. People and their relatives knew how to complain and give feedback about their care. Complaints that were received were investigated appropriately.

The provider was committed to developing the service and introducing technologies to support staff in their work.

Feedback was received from people, staff and relatives and their views were analysed to ensure the service made further quality improvements. Where improvements were required, the registered manager ensured lessons were learned to avoid repeated mistakes.

The registered manager had instilled a positive culture of working together with staff, to help develop the service and monitor the quality of care provided to people.

Staff were able to raise any concerns and were confident that they would be addressed by the management team. The management team carried out regular spot checks on staff p

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 December 2017

The service was safe. Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse. They were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns.

Risks to people were identified and managed safely by staff.

Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people received support to meet their needs. A recruitment procedure was in place to employ staff who were of good character and provided safe care to people.

People received their medicines safely when required and staff received training on how to do this.

The provider was able to learn lessons and improve the safety of the service when required.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 30 December 2017

The service was not always effective. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. However, people�s capacity to make decisions was not recorded clearly and we have made a recommendation about this.

Assessments of people�s needs were carried out to ensure effective outcomes for their care. Changes in people�s care needs were not always updated in their care plans.

Staff received appropriate inductions, training, and support.

People had access to health professionals to ensure their health needs were monitored. Staff ensured people had their nutritional requirements met.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 December 2017

The service was caring. People received care from staff who were kind. They were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff were familiar with people�s care and support needs.

Staff had developed caring relationships with the people they supported.

People and their relatives had involvement in the decisions made about their care.

Staff were respectful of people�s privacy and personal information.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 December 2017

The service was responsive. Care plans were person centred and reflected each person�s needs, and preferences.

The provider ensured important information was accessible to people in a way they could understand it.

People were able to make complaints about the service. The provider investigated all complaints appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 December 2017

The service was well led. Staff received support and guidance from the management team. People and their relatives were happy with the management of the service.

There was a system in place to check if people were satisfied with the service provided.

Quality assurance procedures were in place to monitor that the service running effectively.