You are here

Archived: My Life Living Assistance (Lewes) Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 July 2017

This inspection took place between 19 and 22 June 2017. We visited the office of My Life Living Assistance (Lewes) on the 20 and 21 June 2017. We told the provider we were coming on the two days we visited the office, this was due to it being a domiciliary care agency and we needed to ensure someone was available. The inspection involved a visit to the agency’s office and telephone conversations with people, their relatives and staff, between the beginning and end dates.

My Life Living Assistance (Lewes) is a domiciliary care company based in Lewes. They provide support and care for predominately older people living in their own homes. Some people were at risk of falls and had long term healthcare needs. My Life Living Assistance (Lewes) provide their services within an approximate 10 mile radius from their office in Lewes. At the time of our inspection 100 people were using the service. There was a registered manager in post, a registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Although people and their relatives spoke positively about the service and its leadership we found shortfalls related to some records and an aspect of quality assurance. We found examples where people’s care documentation was incomplete and lacked sufficient detail to ensure staff had clear guidance on how to support people in their own homes. Most of the provider’s quality assurance had been effective at providing oversight and driving improvement however the systems used for the audit of people’s care plans was not robust and had not identified the shortfalls we found. The registered manager was responsive to our feedback and took corrective steps to begin addressing these areas during our inspection.

However, we found other quality assurance systems had been used to improve the service and were designed to ensure people received safe, good quality care. Areas routinely checked included medicines and daily care documentation. Additional quality assurance systems had been established and completed by a regional quality assurance manager.

People told us they felt safe using the services of My Life Living Assistance (Lewes). Positive comments from people included, “I continue to be pleased with the care and how the staff help me.” Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from different types of abuse and how to raise and escalate any concerns they had for people’s wellbeing and safety. Where people had been involved in an incident or accident steps had been taken to investigate, follow up and to reduce the risk of them being repeated.

Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with current regulations and guidance. Medicines records were audited and reviewed to check for errors or omissions. Staff knowledge and competency was routinely checked upon to ensure they were confident to support people with their medicines.

The risks and support needs associated with caring for people in their own homes had been assessed and were reviewed appropriately. Care plans were person centred and the majority provided an accurate guide for staff to consistently care for people. Staff supported people to access health care services if required. Staff told us they knew people well and recognised if they were unwell.

Staff had an understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Care documentation reflected action had been taken and appropriate agencies involved where potential concerns were identified regarding people’s capacity to make decisions regarding their care.

There were enough staff to meet people's support needs and staff had regular training, supervision and appraisal to support them in their roles. Staff gave positive feedback about the training they underwent and people and their relatives told us they felt staff were well trained. Robust and appr

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was safe.

There were processes in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding procedures.

Assessments to determine the risks with supporting people were completed and reviewed. Appropriate action was taken in response to incidents to maintain the safety of people who used the service.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely and in line with their assessed needs and choices.

There were appropriate staffing levels to meet the people�s needs. Staff had been recruited in line with good practice.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were effectively supported in their roles via a comprehensive induction, supervision and training to equip them with the skills and knowledge to provide care.

People were supported to access food and drink of their choice in their homes and assisted where needed to access healthcare services.

Staff understood the necessity of seeking consent from people and acted in accordance with the MCA.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was caring.

People told us they were supported by staff who knew them and were caring and kind.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who took the time to listen and communicate.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and staff were conscious of the need to maintain confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that was responsive to their needs because staff had good knowledge of the people they provided care and support for.

People were regularly consulted about their care and support needs and told us they were able to express their views regarding their choices and preferences.

Arrangements were in place to deal with people's concerns and complaints. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 29 July 2017

The service was not always well led.

Some care documentation did not fully capture people�s care and support needs.

Most quality assurance systems had proved effective at identifying areas which required attention however care plan auditing systems had not been effective.

People spoke positively about the service and staff were well supported in their roles.