You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 June 2018

Little Paddocks is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in four assisted living cottages, and for people in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a split service to four people who require 24 hour care and support who have a learning disability and /or autistic spectrum disorder. These people live in their own cottages on the site of Little Paddocks in Little Clacton. They occupy the same site as the office and a sister home. It also provides a home care domiciliary service providing personal care predominantly to older people in their own homes. People using the service lived in approximately 21 of their own residential houses and ordinary flats across Clacton on Sea, Colchester and the surrounding areas.

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Not everyone using Little Paddocks DCA receives personal care; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the registered provider was providing support to a total of 25 people across the cottages on site and those people living their own residential homes and flats.

This service has not yet been formally rated as it was registered in December 2016. At this inspection, which was the first for the service we found the service was 'Good'.

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

The registered manager had a clear vision about the time staff spent supporting people so they could really focus on giving individualised care and support in a way people wanted it. The feedback we received during the inspection showed that this vision had been achieved, and the service was well led.

Staff had a positive and caring attitude about their jobs. People told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. All the staff we spoke with were happy in their work and proud of the job they do.

People received a safe service from Little Paddocks. There were sufficient numbers of staff who were appropriately trained to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Risks of harm to people had been identified and clear plans and guidelines were in place to minimise these risks.

Staff understood their duty should they suspect abuse was taking place, including the agencies that needed to be notified, such as the local authority safeguarding board or the police.

Staff recruitment procedures were safe. The provider had undertaken appropriate safety checks to ensure that only suitable staff were employed to support people in their own home. Staff said they felt supported to undertake their roles. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training, tailored to the needs of the people they supported.

Staff managed people’s medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines. People were prompted by staff to take their medicines, but where staff gave people their medicine this was done safely.

Where people did not have the capacity to understand or consent to a decision the provider had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005

Inspection areas



Updated 14 June 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe with the staff. Appropriate checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to work at the service.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people.

Staff understood their responsibilities around protecting people from harm.

The provider had identified risks to people's health and safety with them, and put guidelines for staff in place to minimise the risk.

Medicines were managed safely and there were good processes in place to ensure people received the right medicines at the right time where necessary.



Updated 14 June 2018

The service was effective

Staff said they felt supported by the manager, and had access to training to enable them to support the people that used the service.

People's rights under the Mental Capacity Act were met. Assessments of people's capacity to understand decisions had been recorded in line with the Act.

People had enough to eat and drink and staff supported people with specialist diets where a need had been identified.

People received support when they were unwell. The care provided by staff helped people to get better.




Updated 14 June 2018

The service was caring.

People had good relationships with the staff that supported them. People felt happy and confident in the company of staff.

Staff were caring and friendly, and showed respect to people and protected their dignity.

Staff knew the people they cared for as individuals.



Updated 14 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in their care plans, and their reviews where they were able.

Staff had the time to spend with people, as well as providing personal care.

There was a clear complaints procedure in place. Staff understood their responsibilities should a complaint be received.



Updated 14 June 2018

The service was well- led.

Staff felt supported and able to discuss any issues with the registered manager.

The registered manager and homecare service manager regularly visited to speak to people and staff to make sure they were happy.

Quality assurance processes were used to make improvements of the service where a need had been identified.

People and staff were involved in improving the service.

Feedback was sought via regular telephone calls and during quality assurance visits.

The manager understood their responsibilities with regards to the regulations, such as when to send in formal notifications.