We carried out a review of the data available to us about Louisa Homecare Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Louisa Homecare Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
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:
People received a reliable service from staff who knew them well.
People were treated with respect and their privacy, dignity and independence was promoted.
Staff cared about people and established relationships had been built.
People felt safe and risks to their safety were identified and minimised. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns or suspicion of abuse.
People were encouraged to make decisions and were involved in developing and reviewing their support plans.
People were fully assessed and able to discuss their preferences, before being offered a service. This enabled their needs to be met safely and effectively.
Medicines were safely managed. Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines and their competency was assessed every year.
People had support with meal preparation and to keep their home, clean and tidy if required.
People were encouraged to give their views about the service they received. This was through surveys, telephone conversations or within reviews of their support.
There were enough staff to support people. More staff were being recruited to enable the agency to steadily grow.
Clear investment was given to staff, which included their learning, support and progression. Staff regularly met with their line manager to gain support and discuss their training needs.
There were a range of audits, which assessed the quality and safety of the service.
There was a caring ethos, which was adopted throughout the staff team. The registered manager told us the agency was started in memory of a very close relative and the desire to provide compassionate, high quality care.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection on 6 December 2016, the service was rated as Good. The report of this inspection was published on 21 December 2016.
Why we inspected: This was a planned, comprehensive inspection, based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will monitor all intelligence about the service and complete another inspection in line with this and our frequency of inspection guidance.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
A registered manager was employed by the service. 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. The registered manager was available throughout the inspection.
People received safe and effective care which enabled them to live in their own homes. People and their relatives praised the care staff and spoke positively about the care they received. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service. Staff felt supported and confident in raising concerns and felt the registered manager or office staff would act on these.
Care plans were personalised and contained information about how the person wished to receive their care and support. Information included their preferences, likes, dislikes and what was important to them. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs and people told us staff acted in accordance with the guidance in their care plans.
People and relatives told us they received safe care and staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns raised. Measures were in place to manage the risk of harm to people.
People received their care at the correct time. There were enough staff deployed to fully meet people’s health and social care needs. The service, where possible, tried to ensure people received care and support from the same members of staff to ensure consistency of care.
Appropriate recruitment processes were in place to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff being employed by the service. Staff received appropriate training and support from management to ensure they had the right knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.
There were safe medicine administration systems in place and people received their medicines when required. Staff told us they monitored people’s health and wellbeing and any changes or concerns were reported to the office staff, relatives and where appropriate healthcare professionals.
People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink. Staff recorded food and fluid intake during their visits. They told us any concerns they had about people’s intake or weight would be reported to the registered manager for further investigation.
People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise any concerns or make complaints should the need arise. The registered manager investigated complaints and concerns. The registered manager sought feedback from people to ensure the quality of care was maintained. People, their relatives and staff were supported and encouraged to share their views. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us staff sought permission before undertaking any care or support. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and explained how they supported people to make decisions regarding their daily living.
Staff working in the service had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons to help prevent cross contamination and promote infection control.