You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 19 July 2017

This announced inspection took place on 26 June 2017. During our previous inspection we found breaches in regulations 12, 17 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. During this inspection we found improvements had been made to all these areas.

Appleberry Care provides care to adults and children in their own homes. These include people with learning and/or physical disabilities as well as older people. At the time of the inspection there were 31 people using the service. Of these 31 people ten were receiving personal care.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

During this inspection we found the service to be safe. The registered manager was aware of the improvements needed to ensure medicines were administered and recorded safely. Following the inspection the service had been offered support in this area from a reputable source. We made a recommendation about medicines.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans and risk assessments were in place to ensure as far as possible people’s needs were met. Where changes in people’s needs occurred, records were altered and staff informed.

Recruitment systems were in place to ensure people employed by the service were safe to work with children and adults.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were able to carry out their required roles safely as they were not rushed and had sufficient time to spend with people.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse, along with training in other areas of care, for example health and safety and medicines.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and office staff. They told us they were supported and received supervision and training to enable them to carry out their roles. The registered manager was accessible and responded quickly when staff required support or advice.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 but at the time of our inspection there was no one using the service that this applied to.

Staff were described as caring, and professional. People and their relatives spoke positively about their relationships with staff. We were told the staff appeared to be skilled and knowledgeable in how to meet people’s needs and how to support them.

Staff showed respect to people and protected people’s dignity and privacy. They communicated effectively with people and their relatives. They understood the importance of enabling people to be as independent as possible.

People and staff told us the registered manager had made improvements to the service since our last inspection. The registered manager had reviewed care plans and risk assessments, they had ensured these were accessible to people and staff.

The registered manager had met with people to review their care and had carried out telephone consultations with people to receive feedback on the care they had provided. From this information improvements had been made. Additional administrative staff had been employed to assist with the running of the service. We received positive feedback from people and staff regarding the administrative staff.

The registered manager had introduced competency checks on staff, and had increased the regularity with which staff received supervision and support.

Inspection areas



Updated 19 July 2017

The service was safe.

People were supported with medicines by trained staff, however assistance with improvements to records was required.

The provider had systems in place to ensure checks were carried out prior to candidate�s being offered employment. This minimised the risk of unsuitable candidates working with people.

People were protected from harm, as staff knew how to protect people from abuse and who to report concerns to.



Updated 19 July 2017

The service was effective

Staff had received training to enable them to carry out their roles; the training was on-going and relevant to the care being provided by the service.

People received care from staff who were supported through supervision. Their competency was checked by the registered manager.



Updated 19 July 2017

The service was caring.

People spoke positively about the caring attitude and skills of the staff.

Staff knew how to protect people�s privacy and dignity

Staff understood the importance of assisting people to be as independent as possible.



Updated 19 July 2017

The service was responsive.

An assessment of need, followed by a care plan and risk assessment was in place for each person receiving a service. This protected people from receiving inappropriate care.

Care packages were reviewed regularly with people or their representative to identify if any changes were needed.



Updated 19 July 2017

People and staff told us they thought the service was well managed.

People and their relatives felt the service responded well to their needs

Audits of the service had been completed and improvement plans and actions had been taken to improve the service to people.