You are here


Inspection carried out on 25 January 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

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 carried out on 1 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Our inspection took place on 1 August 2017 and was announced.

Forever Homecare is a small, family-run service located in the central business district of Slough, Berkshire. The service provides care at home to older and younger adults in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. Only personal care is regulated by us, and our inspection has excluded evidence about other support types offered by the service. At the time of our inspection, the service provided care to about 31 people and this was growing. There were approximately 15 staff with more being recruited to increase the capacity of the service to cater for more care packages.

The service must have 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.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager.

This is our first inspection of the service since their change in registration with us. The service changed their location since our last inspection.

We found people were protected against abuse or neglect. Staff attended training that ensured their knowledge of safeguarding people was up-to-date. People had personalised risk assessments tailored to their support requirements. We saw sufficient staff were deployed to provide people’s support. We made a recommendation about the service’s medicines policy.

Staff received appropriate induction, training, supervision and support from the service’s management. This ensured their knowledge, skills and experience were appropriate for their caring roles. We saw people’s consent was obtained before care packages commenced. The service needed to ensure that where consent was given by another party (such as a relative with a power of attorney ) that appropriate checks of documentation were completed and stored. People were sometimes supported with their nutrition and hydration. Staff respected people’s choices for meals and enabled them to be as independent as possible in the preparation of food and drinks.

Staff at Forever Homecare were caring. The service had received many compliments about the care received. Responses to surveys we carried out and people and relative’s feedback demonstrated that staff were kind and compassionate. The service had appropriately considered communication barriers in the provision of personal care and implemented strategies to ensure people and their relatives could have effective conversations with staff.

People had appropriate support plans in place which were regularly reviewed. We found the plans contained detailed information relevant to each person who uses the service. There was an appropriate complaints system in place and the management team handled any concerns promptly.

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.

The service was well-led. There was a positive workplace culture and staff felt that management listened to what they had to say. We saw there were a variety of audits and checks completed by the management to measure the safety and quality of care. The service had developed their own improvement plan and worked continually towards improving their support to people and those important to them.