You are here

Golden Years Care Ltd Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 30 August 2019

About the service

Golden Years Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to and nursing care to people living in their own homes.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Not all staff had received recent training on the administration of medicines. Care plans did not guide staff on the side effects on medicines administered. We have made a recommendation about this. People told us they felt safe and they received their medicines on time.

People received regular reviews of their care needs. Staff received training at the start of their employment to ensure they had the skills to provide effective care. However, the provision of ongoing training had lapsed. The provider had recently started to introduce new training for staff. Staff felt very supported by the manager and management team. We saw the provider worked with community health professionals to ensure people received effective care.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. However, not all errors were noted and acted upon. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they would review their processes. People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager and management team. There was a positive culture throughout the service which focused on providing care that was individualised. They were aware of their regulatory responsibilities associated with their role.

Staff told us they knew how to manage risks effectively and identify signs and symptoms of abuse and who to report concerns to. The registered manager had robust recruitment procedures and staffing levels delivered responsive support to people. Staff had access to protective equipment to protect people from the risk of infections.

People told us staff treated them with dignity and were respectful. Care plans held personalised information about people likes and dislikes and how they liked to be supported. 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. Care plans held personalised information that reflected people’s personalities and promoted independent living. One relative told us, “We are very happy and would recommend the service without hesitation. It gives us peace of mind and it’s very personal and they take time to sit and chat with [family member] which is great.”

The service was willing and able to support people with activities. There was a complaints policy that supported positive engagement and timely action. Should it be required end of life care could be provided. Continuity of care was promoted by the service, so people were supported by familiar staff.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 22 March 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.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 30 August 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 30 August 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 30 August 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 30 August 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 30 August 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.