You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 4 March 2021

About the service

Forever Homecare is a service providing care and support to people in their own home. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 47 people, and we were told everyone received support with personal care. The service provided both regular daily visits to people receiving personal care and at times provided some live-in staff members providing a 24-hour support service. The service supported people in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire.

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

Most people we spoke with provided negative feedback regarding their care, although there were some examples of mixed feedback and a smaller number of positive comments. One family member told us, “They are kind and respectful and treat her with dignity, they are lovely.”

Many people raised concerns regarding the timing of visits. People did not receive a copy of their weekly care rota, meaning they were unsure who was coming or when they were due to arrive. One person commented, “There isn’t a rota; it’s a rush sometimes. The timings are not easy.” Another family member added, “There is little consistency; the carers are always changing.”

Some people complained staff arrived late and left early or missed visits. One family member told us, “Occasionally a carer wouldn’t show up at all. Once they didn’t turn up for three days.” Another person told us, “They don’t stay the right amount of time, they do go early.”

Some people described examples of receiving poor care, such as items being left out of reach or their front door being left open. Feedback showed people were not receiving high quality person-centred care. One family member told us, “They don’t give her any dignity. They tried to change her in the lounge until I told them not to.” One person using the service told us, “They talk to each other in their own language. I ask them to speak English but they don’t. When they do speak English I can understand them.”

We found safe care and treatment was not provided. People were not safeguarded from abuse and risks to them, including infection control risks in relation to COVID-19. Safe medicine practices were not followed. Accident and incidents were not effectively managed and there was no evidence of learning from these incidents to prevent reoccurrence.

Safe recruitment practices were not followed. We found staff were not always supervised and trained in line with the provider's policy. Staff we spoke with reported they were able to contact the office, or an on-call person, to seek advice and support when needed.

The records and systems in the service did not support best practice on the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.

The service was not well managed or monitored. The service did not have a registered manager in place. The provider had failed to undertake effective oversight and supervision of the service manager who was responsible for key aspects of the service including safeguarding adults. At the time of our site visit, the service manager was in the process of handover with a recently appointed care manager.

Some people expressed concerns regarding the management of the service particularly in relation to communication. One person told us, “I have to chase everything. They are very helpful, but I have to chase.” Other comments from families included, “I don’t know who the managers are” and “I would raise queries and questions; no one would come back to me.” One person summarised their concerns by telling us, “I wouldn’t recommend the company because of lack of communication, poor timekeeping and lack of management.”

The service failed to make the requir

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 4 March 2021

The service was not safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 March 2021

Caring

Good

Updated 4 March 2021

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 March 2021

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 4 March 2021

The service was not well-led.