You are here

Archived: Right at Home Central London Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 May 2018

This inspection took place on 26 and 27 February 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the manager could be out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. This was our first inspection of the service since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in February 2017.

Right at Home Central London is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults and younger people with physical disabilities, sensory impairments and people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection eight people were using the service.


The service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were helped by staff to prepare their meals and were sufficiently supported with their nutrition and hydration. Medicines were safely managed and the staff who administered medicines had been trained to do so. The registered provider worked together with health professionals to ensure appropriate health provision was accessed by people.

Recruitment checks were carried out on staff before they were employed by the provider. There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff received training and briefings on equality, diversity and human rights which provided them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff received support from the registered manager and had the opportunity to discuss their individual performance needs during supervisions and appraisals.

People told us that staff were caring, respectful and courteous. Staff knew people well, what they liked and how they wanted to be cared for. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Information about safeguarding was in place and staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and knew whom they would report their concerns to. Risks had been assessed and reviewed when people’s needs had changed.

People’s needs were responded to and care tasks were carried out thoroughly by staff. Care plans contained person centred information to support people with their individual needs and their needs were being met. People knew how to raise a complaint and these had been investigated and resolved. The provider was not currently supporting people who were at the end of their end of life but there were plans in place to provide end of life care training for staff so that they could provide this support if required.

People, their relatives and care workers told us the service was well run. Feedback was sought from people to improve the quality of care. The provider worked in partnership with other health care providers and held memberships with a number of professional organisations. Audits to monitor the quality of the service provided were completed and identified the areas that required improvement. Actions were put in place to address these issues.

Inspection areas



Updated 1 May 2018

The service was safe.

Staff knew the correct action to take to keep people safe from harm and abuse. Risks assessments were up to date and reviewed to reflect changes in people�s needs.

Pre- employment checks were completed to ensure that staff were suitably vetted to work with people using the service.

Protocols were followed to ensure the safe management of medicines.

There was enough staff to support people with their care. Staff attended their call visits to people�s home on time.



Updated 1 May 2018

The service was effective.

Risk�s to people�s health and wellbeing were identified and action was taken to address this.

Staff received the appropriate training and support to deliver good standards of care to people.

Staff supported people with their nutritional needs and the provider worked with healthcare professionals when this was required.

Decisions were made in people�s best interests and involved health and social care professionals.



Updated 1 May 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us they were supported by caring and considerate staff.

People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff provided care to people that protected their dignity and privacy.



Updated 1 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Person centred care plans were developed and included people�s lifestyle choices and how they wished to receive their care.

The provider had a strong commitment in relation to raising awareness about equal rights for people.

Suitable processes were in place to deal with complaints and these were managed effectively.



Updated 1 May 2018

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the provider. Systems of audits were completed to identify any shortfalls within the service.

The culture of the service was open and transparent and the provider adopted a 'hands on' approach to help people receive the right care.

The provider worked in partnership with other external providers of care and was knowledgeable about changing legislation in health and social care.