Archived: The London Care Project

The London Care Project is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care support to people living in their own homes. 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, managing medicines and eating. At the time of our inspection there were 2 younger adults using the personal care service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

People told us they felt safe. People were supported by staff who knew how to identify when people may be at risk of harm, and how to report their concerns. Staff openly discussed among themselves when things went wrong and learned lessons from these events. People were supported by consistent long standing staff who were available when needed. Peoples medicines were managed safely, and people were protected from the risks of infection.

People received care and support from care workers who were trained to meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where people required support with their health and diet, these needs were assessed, planned for and met.

People told us staff were sensitive and kind and they received a caring service. People’s rights to dignity, privacy and independence were promoted and respected. People’s choices were listened to and acted upon. People told us they felt valued and that they mattered to staff.

People’s individual needs were assessed, planned for and met. People’s decisions about how they wanted to receive their care and spend their time pursuing hobbies and interests were acted upon. People felt able to raise their complaints which would be responded to.

People and staff were positive about the management of the service which promoted an open and inclusive culture. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care people received. People’s views about the service provided were valued and used to drive improvement.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was good (published 04 March 2017). At this inspection the rating has remained the same.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The London Care Project on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

There was a registered manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

People were supported by The London Care Project to live in their own homes with staff that supported people’s needs. People were given the opportunity to meet the staff before agreeing to their support.

People felt safe, happy and were looked after in their homes. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report concerns both internally and externally. Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to help ensure that all staff were suitably qualified and experienced.

Staff completed regular health and safety checks that included security and fire safety.

Staff received training and refresher updates relevant to their roles and had regular supervision meetings to discuss and review their development and performance.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary. People were supported with shopping and meal preparation.

Staff made considerable efforts to ascertain people’s wishes and obtain their consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way. Information about local advocacy services was available to help people access independent advice if required.

Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they supported and clearly knew them well. People were involved in the planning, delivery and reviews of the care and support provided. The confidentiality of information held about their medical and personal histories was securely maintained throughout their home and in the office.

Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. People received personalised care and support that met their needs and took account of their preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s background histories, preferences, routines and personal circumstances.

People were supported with social interests and took part in meaningful activities relevant to their needs, both at their home and in the wider community. They felt that staff listened to them and responded to any concerns they had in a positive way. Complaints were recorded and investigated thoroughly with learning outcomes used to make improvements where necessary.

Staff were complimentary about the registered manager and how the service was run and operated. Appropriate steps were taken to monitor the quality of services provided, reduce potential risks and drive improvement.