You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The inspection took place on the 18 July 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a live in domiciliary care service. We wanted to be sure that someone would be in to speak with us.

Live-In-Care4U LTD is a live in domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support services for a range of people living in their own homes. These included older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection four people were receiving a service.

This was the first inspection since the service was registered with CQC. The provider was also the 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.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service by the use of checks and internal quality audits. We found audits to be inconsistent in quality and not always recorded when they had been carried out. The absence of detailed auditing also meant the registered manager could not be assured of the quality of service delivered. We have therefore identified this as an area of practice that needs improvement.

Staff had a firm understanding of how to keep people safe and there were appropriate arrangements in place to manage risks. One person told us “I always feel safe with whoever is caring for me and staying here”. There were enough staff employed to care for people safely and the provider had recruitment procedures to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people. People were supported to receive their medicines safely in line with current regulations and guidance.

Staff told us they received training and supervision and were confident in meeting people’s needs. Staff were happy with the level of support they received and told us that communication from the registered manager was good. One member of staff told us “Yes we get updates for training and I have recently completed my care certificate”.

People told us that staff were kind and caring. Comments included “The staff are caring and helpful, what more could one ask for” and “Oh yes, they are very caring and skilled”. People confirmed staff respected their privacy and dignity. Staff had an understanding of respecting people within their own home and providing them with choice and control. People were supported at mealtimes to access food and drink of their choice if required. One person told us “They assist with my meal times and cook what I would like on the day”.

The service had a complaints system in place but had received no complaints. People and relatives told us there was regular contact with the registered manager and they confirmed that any issues raised were dealt with appropriately. One relative told us “I could pick up the phone and speak to the manager if I had any concern and I know they would deal with it for me”.

People’s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed and they received support based upon their needs and preferences. We found the support plans to be person centred and details recorded were consistent. Staff supported people to access health care services if required. Staff told us they knew people well and recognised if they were unwell.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about how the registered manager was approachable and all felt communication in the service was very good. One person told us “Yes the manager is nice and I find her professional”. A relative told us “We find the manager very caring and always keeps us updated and stays in touch”.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was safe.

There were processes in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding procedures.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely. There were appropriate staffing levels to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. There were processes for recording accidents and incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had received an induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and to access health care services when they needed to with assistance from staff.

Staff were knowledgeable and acted in line with the principles of

The Mental Capacity Act 2005. This ensured that people's rights

were protected in relation to making decisions about their care

and treatment.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was caring.

People told us the care staff were caring and friendly.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their independence was promoted.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was responsive.

Assessments were undertaken and care plans developed to identify people’s health and support needs.

There was a system in place to manage complaints and comments. People felt if needed they were able to make a complaint and were confident that complaints would be listened to and acted on.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences and how best to meet those needs.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

There were formal systems in place to monitor the quality of the service but these were not always consistent and information was not consistently recorded.

Staff were supported by the registered manager. There was open communication within the team and staff felt comfortable discussing any concerns with their manager.

People and relatives we spoke with felt the registered manager was approachable and helpful.