Archived: Anjel 2000 Limited

Updated 15 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 inspection took place on 29 June and 7 July 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ advance notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure that staff were available. This meant the provider and staff knew we would be visiting the agency’s office before we arrived.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about Anjel 2000 including notifications we had received. Notifications are information about important events the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used this information in the planning of the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with three staff and the director. We reviewed seven people’s care records, risk assessments and medicines administration records. We looked at documents relating to staff and management. We reviewed five staff files which included pre-employment checks, training records and supervision notes. We read the provider’s quality assurance information and audits. We looked at the provider’s complaints policy and feedback from people.

Following the inspection we spoke with two people and contacted six health and social care professionals to gather their views about the service people were receiving.

Updated 15 September 2016

This inspection took place on 29 June and 7 July 2016 and was announced.

Anjel 2000 is a domiciliary care service delivering personal care to adults and children. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to seven people.

The registered manager was not present during the inspection. Their whereabouts and duration of absence were not known by the provider. 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.

People were at risk of missed calls because the provider did not have a system to identify which staff would be supporting people and at what times. This risk was compounded by the absence of any record of the availability of office staff and managers to whom a missed call could be reported by people or staff. People received care in their own homes from staff who had not been recruited safely. Staff were working with adults and children without first having submitted two satisfactory references. People were supported with risk assessments to reduce the possibility of avoidable harm and safe hygiene and infection control practices were used.

There were no records of staff training planned or undertaken. Staff received supervision and appraisal and understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to eat nutritious meals and had access to healthcare professionals as their needs required.

People thought the staff were caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s confidentiality was protected and their independence promoted.

People had personalised care plans based upon needs assessments. Staff supported people to engage in the activities they chose. The provider gathered people’s views about the care and support being delivered.

People and staff did not know the whereabouts or availability of the registered manager or office personnel as the arrangements for staffing the office were not recorded and there were no rotas. Quality assurance checks at people’s homes were ineffective as no information was recorded and action plans were not written. The registered manager failed to act on audits which showed shortfalls in staff recruitment processes. The provider worked in partnership with health and social care professionals and commissioners in planning and reviewing peoples support.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in 'Special measures'. The service will be kept under review and will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

Following the inspection the provider wrote to CQC to inform us that they would be closing. At the time of writing this report Anjel 2000 were no longer delivering care and support to people.