Archived: Leah Victoria Cares

Leah Victoria Cares provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 19 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they received safe care and treatment and spoke positively about the care staff and the support the service provided. However, the providers’ risk management practices were not robust, this included the lack of ongoing training in areas such as infection prevention. The registered manager needed to improve their recruitment practices to protect people from unsuitable staff. We made a recommendation about this.

People’s care records provide adequate detail regarding their care needs and how risks around them would be monitored. People and family members knew how to make a complaint and they were confident about complaining should they need to. They were confident that their complaint would be listened to and acted upon quickly.

The registered provider’s governance systems did not always support the delivery of safe care and compliance with regulations. Systems for maintaining care records, risk management, auditing staff training and supervision were not always in line with current practice. People and staff shared positive feedback regarding the support they received from the registered manager.

Medicines management practices were not robust, we made a recommendation about this. Some of the staff had received safeguarding training and staff knew how to report concerns about abuse.

The registered manager had supported staff with a range of training, however improvements were required as majority of the training had not been updated in line with the providers’ policy. Staff supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives. However, improvements were required to ensure people’s ability to consent to care and make their own decisions was assessed. We made a recommendation about seeking consent.

People received support to maintain good nutrition and hydration and their healthcare needs were understood and met.

People and their relatives told us they were treated with dignity and staff were respectful of their homes. Staff knew how to maintain people’s privacy and confidentiality. They were respectful of people’s protected characteristics such as gender, cultural and religious needs. One relative told us, “The care is excellent, they try to get [relative] independent and on an emotional level they are very kind.”

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good. (published 05 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement:

We have identified breaches in relation to risk management, good governance, record keeping at this inspection. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

This is the first inspection of the service since registering with the Care Quality Commission in June 2016.

The service had a 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.

We found the service to be exceptionally caring. People using the service and their relatives and healthcare professionals provided highly complimentary feedback about how compassionate and dedicated the staff were. People’s care often went beyond expectations and what was required of staff. Staff were exceptionally kind and understanding of the needs of people using the service.

People using the service were involved in planning and making decisions about their care. Staff were creative in how they provided care and ensured people felt valued by the service. The registered manager and staff extended call visit times if a person was unwell or could benefit from companionship.

People gave consent to care and treatment. People had their care and support delivered in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.

People received safe care provided by the service. Staff understood how to protect people from potential abuse. Training in safeguarding adults enabled staff to identify abuse and understand their responsibilities to report any concerns about people’s welfare.

People using the service received care from a sufficient number of qualified and suitably vetted staff. Staff identified risks to people’s welfare in partnership with them, their families where appropriate and healthcare professionals. Staff followed guidance in place to support each person safely and in line with their individual needs.

People using the service received care from staff who had the support required to undertake their roles. The support provided to staff included an induction, regular training and supervisions which equipped them with the skills and knowledge required for their roles.

People using the service received support to maintain their health and to access healthcare services when needed. Staff supported people to eat and drink healthily and safely and to have their nutritional needs met.

People’s feedback about the service enabled the registered manager to improve on the quality of care delivered. People using the service and their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about the standard of care provided.

Checks and audits carried out on the service empowered the registered manager to identify and act on shortfalls identified to improve people’s care. People using the service and staff knew the registered manager and were happy with the managing of the service and delivery of care. A positive culture at the service focused on people’s individual needs. There was a close partnership with external agencies to improve the quality of service provision.