Onecare-uk Ltd

Updated 30 March 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We visited Onecare-uk Ltd on 21 December 2018 and returned to the service on 3 January 2019 to complete our inspection. The inspection team consisted of a single inspector. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of our visits as this is a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure that the registered manager or other office staff members were available.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information that we held about the service. This included notifications and other information that that we had received from the service and the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give key information about the service, what the service does well, and the improvements that they plan to make. We also contacted a professional from a commissioning local authority.

During our inspection we viewed records held by the service. These included the care records for 14 people using the service and 12 staff records, along with records relating to the management of the service. We spoke with the registered manager and another member of the management team. Following out inspection we spoke with four care staff,11 people who used the service and two family members.

Updated 30 March 2019

Our inspection of Onecare-UK Limited took place on 21 December 2018. We returned to the service on 3 January 2019 to complete the inspection.

Onecare-uk Ltd is a domiciliary care agency based in the London Borough of Harrow. The service provides a range of support to adults living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service provided care and support to 90 people with a range of needs and disabilities including dementia and other conditions associated with ageing, learning disabilities, autism and mental health needs. The service has developed a specialism in working with people with hearing impairments.

At our last inspection during April 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The Service had a registered manager. 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.

People who used the service spoke positively about the care and support that they received. They were complimentary about their care workers and their approaches to providing support

The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential areas of concern and prevent harm or abuse from happening to people. Staff members had received training in safeguarding and demonstrated that they understood how to safeguard the people whom they were supporting.

Person centred risk assessments had been developed for people. We saw that these included guidance for staff on managing identified risks. Actions had been put in place to review and improve the quality of people’s risk assessments.

Some people received support to take prescribed medicine. Arrangements were in place to ensure that these were appropriately given and recorded.

Staff recruitment records showed that the provider ensured that workers employed by the service were suitable for the work they were undertaking. Staffing rotas met the current support needs of people. Systems were in place to monitor care visits.

Staff members working at the service received the support they required to undertake their roles in supporting people. We saw that a range of training was provided to new staff and that ‘this was updated on a regular basis. Staff members received regular supervision sessions with a manager. Arrangements were in place to ensure that staff members with hearing impairments were supported by a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter to participate in training and supervision sessions.

The service followed guidance associated with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Capacity assessments had been put in place for all people using the service. People were asked for their consent to any care or support that was provided. Family members had been consulted where people could not give consent.

Staff members spoke positively and respectfully about their approaches to care, and the people that they provided care to.

People’s religious, cultural and other needs and preferences were supported. The service had recruited staff members who were able to communicate with people using their preferred language.

Care plans contained information about people’s care and support needs with guidance for staff about how these should be supported. People spoke positively about the quality of care that was provided and the information that they received.

The service had a complaints procedure that was available in an easy to read format. People who used the service knew what to do if they had a concern or complaint.

The service was well managed. People who used the service and staff members spoke positively about its management. A range of processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service, such as audits, spot checks of care practice and service user satisfaction surveys. Actions had been taken to address any concerns arising as a result of quality assurance processes.