• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Anglia Home Care Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Suite 5, Old Court Building, Old Nelson Street, Lowestoft, NR32 1EQ (01502) 508443

Provided and run by:
Anglia Home Care Limited

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

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 10 February 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This announced comprehensive inspection was carried out by one inspector on 13 December 2017. We gave the service notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure that someone would be available to support the inspection.

The inspection site visit activity started on 13 December 2017 and ended 14 December 2017. It included a visit to the office location on the first day and on the second day we spoke with 15 people who used the service on the telephone and the relatives of 11 people.

We visited the office location on 13 December 2017 to see the registered manager. We also spoke with the care manager, a care coordinator, the training coordinator, two team leaders and a care worker. We reviewed 10 people’s care records, policies and procedures, records relating to the management of the service, training records, quality assurance records, and the recruitment records of six care workers, three of these had recently been employed.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at information we held about the service including notifications they had made to us about important events. We also reviewed all other information sent to us from other stakeholders for example the local authority and members of the public.

Prior to our inspection we contacted local authority commissioners for feedback about the service. We received no information of concern.

Prior to our inspection we sent questionnaires to 50 people using the service, 50 to relatives, 24 to staff and four to community professionals. This was to gain feedback about the service provided. We received completed questionnaires from 15 people, none from relatives, three from staff and one from a community professional. One of the questionnaires from staff was from a member of the office team and they added a note that because they did not directly support people they had responded to some questions that they did not know.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 10 February 2018

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. At the time of this announced inspection of 13 December 2017 there were 287 people who used the personal care service. We gave the service notice of our inspection to make sure that someone was available.

The location of Anglia Home Care Limited was registered in June 2016 and this was their first inspection. The service operates under Manorcourt Homecare, this is the name that people who use the service know.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People’s care records provided guidance to support workers about how the risks in people’s daily living were minimised. There were infection control processes and procedures in place to reduce the risks of cross infection. There were systems in place designed to reduce the risks of people being abused, such as providing support workers with training and guidance in the service’s policies and procedures. Where incidents occurred these were learned from and used to drive improvement in the service.

Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

There were systems in place to reduce the risks of people not receiving their planned care visits. There were robust recruitment systems in place. People were cared for and supported by support workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s consent was sought before any care was provided.

Where required, people were provided with the support they needed to meet their dietary needs.

People were supported to access health care professionals, where required, to maintain good health. The service worked with other professionals involved in people’s care to provide an effective and consistent service.

People said that their care workers were respectful and caring. Care records guided support workers in how people’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted and respected. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People’s views and preferences were valued and listened to about how their care was planned for and delivered.

People received care and support which was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their specific needs. There were systems in place to provide support to people who were at the end of their life in a dignified and caring manner.

There was a complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed and used to improve the service.

There was an open and empowering culture in the service. People were asked for their views of the service and these were valued and acted on. There was a quality assurance system in place and shortfalls were addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.