Archived: Anjel 2000 Limited

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.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Individual risks to people were assessed and plans were put in place to promote their safety. There were arrangements in place to ensure people's needs were met if an emergency arose.

Is the service effective?

People had been fully involved by the service in planning their support. Their circumstances, needs and preferences had been assessed and they had a care plan which set out how the service supported them. Staff had received training that enabled them to carry out their work role effectively.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by a small group of staff who knew them well. People reported that they were treated with respect by staff.

Is the service responsive?

People's records demonstrated they were asked how they would like to be supported. Their support arrangements reflected their views. People's support was flexible in response to their wishes.

Is the service well-led?

When we last inspected the service in February 2014 we found that people may have been at risk because the service did not have accurate and up to date records in relation to people's care needs and the support received by staff. We asked for improvements to be made. At this inspection we confirmed that the provider had taken effective action to improve the standard record keeping in the service.

The service has a manager who is registered with the Care Quality Commission. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service people received.

We found that people's support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure their welfare and safety. People were asked for their agreement before care was provided to them. There were appropriate procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

We found that records about people using the service and the support staff received were not always maintained or kept up to date appropriately.

There were comprehensive care planning arrangements in place in the service, which included up to date care plans and risk assessments.

The provider had arrangements in place to protect people from abuse which included safeguarding training for its staff team. A safeguarding policy was in place, but the provider may find it useful to note that the policy did not clearly highlight staff responsibilities to protect people from harm.

Suitable recruitment checks were completed to ensure people were cared for and supported by qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

The provider had arrangements in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included visits and conversations with people using the service and their representatives. However, the provider may wish to note that monitoring activities were not formally arranged or documented.