You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The inspection took place on 23 May 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available.

Quality Caring Ltd is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to older people living in their own homes. The agency is a privately owned company. At the time of our inspection they provided approximately 1,400 hours of care each week to older people who lived in the London Borough of Hounslow. The majority of people had their care funded by the London Borough of Hounslow, although some people funded or partly funded their own care. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The last inspection took place on 16 June 2015 and the service was rated Good. At the inspection of 23 May 2017 we found the service remained Good.

People who used the service were happy. They felt their needs were being met and they liked the staff who cared for them. Relatives were also happy and told us that they felt people were being cared for safely.

The staff felt well supported and had opportunities to meet with the registered manager and senior staff to discuss their work. They were recruited in a safe way, with the provider undertaking checks on their suitability.

People told us that care visits took place at the right time and that the staff stayed for the agreed amount of time. The provider had systems to monitor when care visits were happening and they were able to respond quickly if the staff did not arrive when they were supposed to.

The staff were aware of local authority safeguarding procedures and knew what action to take if they felt a person was at risk of abuse. They were trained to administer medicines safely and people received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed.

People had consented to their care and treatment, and where they lacked capacity the provider had acted within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions in the person's best interest. The staff had a thorough induction when they started work at the agency and their performance was monitored. Some of the formal training courses which longer serving staff had undertaken had not been updated or renewed and therefore they may not have the most up to date information about current best practice or changes in legislation.

The staff were kind, caring and thoughtful. People using the service liked their care workers and had good relationships with them. The provider was able to discuss examples of care with us that showed the staff had sometimes ''gone the extra mile'' to provide care and support to those most in need, such as people who had been neglected in the past and those with limited resources. In addition, there were instances where the provider had demonstrated their care and compassion for the staff who worked with them, providing assistance when they found themselves in difficult circumstances.

People's care needs were assessed and recorded and the provider reviewed these in partnership with each person. There were clear care plans which were updated when people's needs changed. The staff recorded the care they had delivered and we saw that this reflected the care plans. People knew how to make a complaint and felt confident that they would be listened to and their concerns would be investigated.

The company had been founded and managed by a married couple and had been operating for over 20 years. One of the owners was also the registered manager. People using the service, their families and staff found the owners supportive and approachable. They felt the organisation

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service remains Good.

People felt safe with care workers from the agency.

There were appropriate procedures for recognising and reporting abuse and the staff were aware of these.

The risks which people were exposed to had been assessed and there were plans to minimise these risks.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs and they had been recruited in a way which checked their suitability to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service remains Good.

People were cared for by staff who were appropriately supported and who had the information they needed to care for them.

New staff received a comprehensive induction, however some experienced staff had not undertaken training to update them on best practice.

The provider worked with other health care professionals to monitor and meet healthcare needs.

People who received support at mealtimes were happy with this.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service remains Good.

People were cared for by kind, supportive and polite staff who they had good relationships with.

There were examples of when the provider and staff had gone the extra mile to care for those who were most in need.

People's privacy and dignity were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service remained Good.

People had support to meet their needs and reflect their preferences.

Care plans gave a summary of each person's needs and how these should be met.

People knew how to make a complaint and felt these were responded to.

The care workers mostly arrived on time and stayed for the agreed length of time.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service remains Good.

People using the service, their relatives and staff felt the service was well-led.

There were opportunities for people to contribute their views.

The provider had systems for auditing the quality of the service.

Records were appropriately maintained.