You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 August 2017

We carried out this inspection on 5 June 2017. The inspection was announced. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We wanted to make sure the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf would be available to support our inspection.

YourLife (Chippenham) is a service which provides personal care and support to older people in their own homes. All of the people supported live in the same complex. The care service is based on site, as part of an assisted living environment. At the time of the inspection, four people used the service and they were referred to as ‘homeowners’. YourLife (Chippenham) was initially registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 2016. This was the first inspection of the service.

There was a registered manager in post but they were not available on the day of the inspection, as they were on annual leave. We spoke to the registered manager on the telephone after the inspection, on 16 June 2017. 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 is responsible for the day to day management of the agency.

Audits were taking place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. However, not all areas of the service were addressed and action plans were not always specific. The care compliance manager confirmed this had been identified and focus was being given to improve the quality auditing systems in place.

People were complimentary about staff and said they were good at their job. Records showed a range of training was arranged although not all staff had completed all topics required of them. Staff felt well supported. They received informal day to day support, as well as more formal meetings with their manager to discuss their performance. Initiatives were in place to value staff.

People were happy with the service they received and felt safe. They said staff were reliable and there were no concerns about late or missed visits. People were able to choose when they wanted their support. If they had an appointment, they could cancel or receive their visit, earlier or later than usual.

Before receiving a service, people discussed their needs and agreed what support they required. People were fully involved in developing their support plan and its review. They said any amendments were easily made. People felt confident to ask staff to undertake small tasks, which were not part of their support plan. They said they were usually supported by the same staff which enabled consistency. Positive relationships had been built.

People were appropriately supported with meal preparation if required. Alternatively, people could have a three course lunch in the restaurant on site. Within the restaurant, there was a good choice and variety of quality foods.

People were able to make decisions and manage their healthcare independently. Safe systems were in place to support people with their medicines although information about the application of topical creams was limited. This was being addressed with the use of body maps.

People knew how to make a complaint and their views of the service were regularly sought. People were confident any issues would be appropriately addressed. People confirmed their rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence were promoted. There was a clear ethos of promoting people’s independence and enabling fulfilling lives to be followed.

There were enough staff to support people effectively although some external agency staff were used. Safe practices were being followed to recruit more staff. It was expected this would enable greater flexibility and to respond to additional care packages, as required.

Inspection areas



Updated 1 August 2017

The service was safe.

People told us the service was reliable and there were no issues with late or missed visits.

Individual risks to people's safety were appropriately identified and acted on to enhance people's safety.

There were enough staff to effectively meet people's needs although some external agency staff were being used.

Organised recruitment practices ensured all new staff were suitable for their role.



Updated 1 August 2017

The service was effective.

People received support from a small team of staff who knew them well.

Staff felt valued and were well supported.

Staff received a range of training to help them do their job effectively.

People needed very little support with meal preparation but would request this assistance if required.



Updated 1 August 2017

The service was caring.

People were positive about the staff and the service they provided.

The consistency of visits enabled relationships between people and staff to be developed. This enhanced the quality of interactions and people's confidence.

Staff promoted people's rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence.



Updated 1 August 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff were responsive to people's needs, which enabled people to live independently.

Each person had a care plan, which identified their needs and the support required.

People received regular reviews to ensure their care remained appropriate.

People knew how to raise a concern and felt any issues would be properly addressed.


Requires improvement

Updated 1 August 2017

The service was not always well-led.

Systems had been introduced and further developed following the initial registration of the service in February 2016.

Auditing was in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service but not all areas were addressed and action plans were not always specific.

There was a clear ethos, which was portrayed throughout the service.

People were encouraged to give their views about the service they received.