You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

This inspection took place on 11 July 2018 and was announced.

This was the first comprehensive inspection carried out at WiCare Services Ltd.

WiCare Services Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. WiCare Services Ltd provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. On the day of our visit, there were two people using the service.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm. Risk assessments were in place and were reviewed regularly; people received their care as planned to mitigate their assessed risks.

The registered manager provided nearly all the care, with bank staff for additional occasional support. Safe recruitment processes were in place. People received care from staff that had received training and support to carry out their roles.

People were supported to access relevant health and social care professionals. There were systems in place to manage medicines in a safe way.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA). Staff gained people's consent before providing personal care. People were involved in the planning of their care which was person centred and updated regularly.

People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. People had developed positive relationships with staff. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.

People were supported to express themselves, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred.

People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint. There was a complaints system in place and people were confident that any complaints would be responded to appropriately.

We have made a recommendation about developing the service’s quality monitoring.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was safe.

People received care from staff that knew how to safeguard people from abuse.

People's risks assessments were reviewed regularly and as their needs changed.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures.

Staff followed safe medicines management and infection control procedures.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was effective.

People’s care was delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence based guidance.

Staff that received the training and support they required to carry out their roles.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.

People's consent was sought before staff provided care.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and respect by staff.

People were supported to be involved in planning their care.

People's privacy and dignity were maintained and respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care that met their needs.

People had information on how to make complaints and the provider had procedures they followed to manage complaints.

The registered manager planned to work with health professionals to help people plan their care and preferences for end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager who understood their roles and responsibilities.

Quality monitoring of the service was in it’s infancy.

People were asked for their feedback regularly.