You are here

Liral Veget Training and Recruitment Ltd Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 June 2018

We undertook an announced focused inspection on 29 March 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice as we needed to be sure they would be available for the inspection. Liral Veget Training and Recruitment Ltd provides personal care to people living in supported living accommodation across four local authorities. At the time of our inspection seven people were using the service. Most of the people using the service were younger adults with a learning disability. The supported living accommodation was provided by another service which the manager for Liral Veget was also responsible for.

At the last inspection on 15 August 2017, we found one breach of regulation relating to concerns about the provider’s staff recruitment practices. We rated the service Requires Improvement. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in relation to recruitment practices and care workers were recruited safely. No risks, concerns or significant improvement were identified in the remaining Key Questions through our ongoing monitoring or during our inspection activity so we did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these Key Questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider conducted appropriate checks of candidates prior to employing them to help ensure they were safe to work with people using the service.

The registered manager visited people in their homes to monitor service provision. The provider carried out an annual survey to ascertain people’s views in relation to the care being provided. Where issues were identified, action plans were put in place to rectify these and improve the service.

The provider conducted safe medicines management. There were appropriate procedures in place for administering and recording the medicines given and care workers were given appropriate training. Records indicated that procedures were adhered to as stipulated within the policy.

Risk assessments were conducted to safely manage known risks. These included risk management plans with clear advice for care workers about how to mitigate risks.

Care workers were aware of their responsibilities to safeguarding people from abuse. They had received appropriate training and were aware of the procedures to follow if they suspected someone was being abused.

Inspection areas



Updated 13 June 2018

The service was safe. Safer recruitment processes were conducted to help ensure candidates were suitable to work with people.

Appropriate records were kept where care staff helped people to take their medicines. Care staff had received training in medicines administration and the registered manager checked records to make sure they were being properly filled in.

Care staff had a good understanding of how they were expected to respond if they suspected someone was being abused. The provider had a safeguarding policy and procedure in place and care staff had received training in how to recognise and respond to abuse.

The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available to meet people’s needs. The provider ensured care staff with the right skills were sent to assist people with their needs.

The provider appropriately assessed and managed risks to people’s safety during care delivery. Risk assessments included clear risk management guidelines for care staff to follow when assisting people.



Updated 1 November 2017

The service was effective. Staff were trained, supported and supervised to meet the needs of people. Staff understood the needs of the people they supported and felt confident in delivering support to them.

People, and where necessary their relatives and professionals consented to their care before they were delivered. Records showed staff had completed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. However, not all the staff we spoke with showed understanding of what this was Act was about.

People were supported with food and drinks as required in line with their needs.

People were supported by staff to access a range of healthcare services to maintain their well-being and health.



Updated 1 November 2017

The service was caring. Relatives we spoke with told us staff were kind and understanding towards people. They said staff treated them with respect and dignity.

People’s privacy was respected.

People were involved in day-to-day decisions about their care and support.



Updated 1 November 2017

The service was responsive. People’s care was planned and delivered in a way which met their individual needs and requirements. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

People and their relatives knew how to complain if they were unhappy about the service.



Updated 13 June 2018

The service was well-led. The provider conducted unannounced spot checks to assess the quality of service as well as an annual survey to obtain people’s views. We found the results of these were positive.

Care staff gave good feedback about the registered manager and other senior staff that supported them in their role.