We carried out a review of the data available to us about Reliacare on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Reliacare, you can give feedback on this service.
Reliacare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. The service supports people living in Barrow, Ulverston and the surrounding areas. There were 50 people receiving personal care when we inspected.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were trained in how to identify and report abuse and how to provide people’s care safely. The registered manager had identified and managed potential risks to people’s safety. There were enough staff to support people. Staff supported people, as they needed, to take their medicines. Staff followed robust infection prevention and control procedures and people were protected from the risk of infection. The registered manager learned from any incidents and shared learning with the staff team to ensure people’s safety.
People received person-centred care which met their needs. The provider had systems to monitor the quality of the service. The service managers worked with staff providing people’s care. People said the service was well-managed and they would recommend it. Staff worked cooperatively with other services to ensure people received the care and support they needed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good, (report published 20 December 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
The service had not been subject to a formal regulatory review since the inspection in 2017. We undertook a focused inspection to seek assurance people continued to receive safe, high-quality care.
We reviewed the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Reliacare on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Reliacare Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care support to people living with dementia, mental health and older people. It supports people who misuse drugs and alcohol, people who have a physical disability and younger adults, all who live in their own homes. The agency is situated in the town of Ulverston. The office is accessible to anyone with mobility problems. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people receiving a service from Reliacare Limited.
Reliacare Limited registered as a domiciliary care agency with the Care Quality Commission in October 2016. We had not previously inspected the service.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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.
During this inspection, we found staff had received training to safeguard people from abuse. They understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to the safeguarding of adults who may be vulnerable. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure. One staff member told us, “I would not leave if people weren’t safe.”
There was an appropriate skill mix of staff to ensure the needs of people who used the service were met. New staff worked alongside experienced staff members whilst they learnt their role.
The registered provider planned visits to allow carers enough time to reach people and complete all tasks safely.
Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were personalised and informative about the care people received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary. They reflected any risks and people’s changing needs.
Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they were competent and had the skills required. The registered provider completed spot checks on staff to observe their work practices were appropriate and people were safe.
Staff were provided with personal protective equipment to protect people and themselves from the spread of infection.
The registered provider had put in place procedures around recruitment and selection to minimise the risk of unsuitable employees working with people who may be vulnerable. Required checks had been completed before any staff started work at the service. This was confirmed during discussions with staff.
The registered provider had regularly completed a range of audits to maintain people’s safety and welfare.
Staff members received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.
Staff told us they received regular formal and informal support from the management team.
People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care packages. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
When appropriate meals and drinks were prepared for people. This ensured people received adequate nutrition and hydration.
Care records contained information about the individual’s ongoing care and rehabilitation requirements. This showed the registered provider worked with other health care services to meet people’s health needs.
People said they had a team of regular carers with whom they and had built up good relationships. For example, one person told us, “They [staff] are fun, have a laugh and a joke it makes my life pleasant.”
Staff we spoke with understood the support needs of people they visited. They knew how individuals wanted their care to be delivered. One person told us, “I have a care plan that says everything, but the carers have been coming for so long they don’t need to refer to it they know what to do.”
A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain. At the time of our inspection, the registered provider had received no formal complaints.
The registered manager had sought feedback from people receiving support and staff for input on how the service could continually improve.
The service demonstrated good management and leadership with clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the management team.
There was recorded evidence that showed the registered provider worked in partnership with other agencies to provide safe care and treatment.