You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 30 October 2018

The inspection started on 6 September and ended on 11 September 2018. The registered manager was given two days’ notice of our inspection.

Eldercare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of inspection 29 older people used the service. One of the directors, who was also the registered manager, was present throughout the inspection.

At our last inspection the provider was found to be in breach of four regulations. These were Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment, Regulation 18 Staffing, Regulation 19 Fit and proper persons employed and Regulation 17 Good governance.

We asked the provider to take action to make improvements to their quality monitoring systems and processes and ensure they kept complete, accurate and contemporaneous records to ensure they complied with Regulation 17 Good governance. This action has been completed.

Following the last inspection, we met with the provider to asked what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; Is the service Safe? Is the service Effective? Is the service Caring? Is the service Responsive? Is the service Well-led? to at least good.

Risk assessments had been improved to ensure they captured all risks relating to each individual. They had been reviewed an updated when changes in people’s need occurred.

Safe recruitment processes were now in place and had been followed. Pre-employment checks had been completed and an induction process followed.

Medicines had been managed safely. Staff had been provided with appropriate training and observations to assess staff competencies within this area had been conducted. Medicine administration records were now collected and audited on a monthly basis to ensure any areas of concern were identified and actioned as soon as possible.

Safeguarding training had been provided and staff we spoke with knew how to raise concerns. They were confident the management team would deal with any concerns raised appropriately.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and attend planned care visits. People were supported by a consistent team of staff and pre-admission assessments had been completed to ensure the service could meet people’s needs before a package of care was accepted.

A comprehensive training plan was in place to ensure staff had the skills and knowledge to fulfil their roles. An extensive range of training had been provided since the last inspection. Regular one to one supervisions and appraisals had taken place. Staff told us they felt supported.

People were supported to access health professionals when needed and to maintain a healthy balanced diet of their choice.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had signed their care plans to consent to the support they were receiving.

People’s independence was promoted by staff. Care plans had been further developed to ensure they contained person-centred information and provided clear guidance of the level of support that people required. These had been regularly reviewed to ensure they remained up to date.

People’s end of life wishes had been discussed and recorded. Advanced care plans provided staff with information about aspects of the person’s life that was important to them.

Complaints had been recorded and responded to in accordance with the provider’s policy and procedure. A concerns log had also been introduced to ensure informal concerns raised were addressed accordingly.

Effective quality assurance processes were now in place which were used to highlight any shortfalls in the service. Record showed that when shortfalls had been identified, action had been taken to address concerns.

Feedback from peo

Inspection areas



Updated 30 October 2018

The service was safe.

Risk management plans were now in place to highlight areas of risk and how this should be managed.

Safe recruitment processes were in place and being followed.

Medicines had been managed safely. Appropriate training in this area had been provided.



Updated 30 October 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had been provided with training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required.

Regular supervisions had been conducted to review staffs’ performance. Staff felt supported within their role.

People were supported with meal preparation where this was required.

Staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.



Updated 30 October 2018

The service was caring.

Staff promoted people’s independence and respected choices they made.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff who were knowledgeable of people’s likes, dislikes and preferences.

People told us staff were kind, caring and conscientious.



Updated 30 October 2018

The service was responsive.

The provider’s complaints policy and procedure had been followed. People were confident any concerns would be addressed promptly.

Care plans had been further developed to ensure they contained person-centred information.

Regular reviews of people’s care and support took place to ensure the service continued to meet their needs.



Updated 30 October 2018

The service was well-led.

Effective quality assurance processes were now in place to monitor and improve the service.

Feedback from people had been sought. Action had been taken when concerns were identified.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively of the management team. Regular staff meetings now took place that enabled staff to share ideas to help improve the service.