We carried out a review of the data available to us about City Care Agency on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about City Care Agency, you can give feedback on this service.
City Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older people, some living with dementia. It also supports people with physical disabilities and people with mental health needs.
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 and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
At the time of the inspection the provider was supporting 95 people across 5 London Boroughs with personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their relatives were very happy with how their care and support was being delivered and felt staff kept them safe and had a good understanding of their care needs.
People’s care was regularly monitored to ensure it was delivered within a specific timeframe and no visits were missed. People and their relatives did not highlight any consistent timekeeping concerns.
There were monitoring systems in place with regular opportunities for people and their relatives to give feedback about their care. This helped the provider to identify any issues with the quality of the service.
Where issues were raised, the management team worked closely with people, their families and the relevant health and social care professionals to resolve them.
People and their relatives were positive about the management of the organisation and told us the management team listened to them, were approachable and tried to be as flexible as possible. We saw samples of compliments that highlighted staff went above and beyond at times in the support they provided.
People were supported by staff who were very positive about working for the organisation and felt valued as part of the team. Staff told us they were well supported and were confident their issues would be listened to.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for the service was good (published 30 April 2019).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to recruitment practices, the reporting of safeguarding incidents, allegations of missed calls and the overall management of the service. This included concerns around staff pay, which was shared with the relevant government agency. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for City Care Agency on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ Relatives spoke positively about staff supporting their family members and told us they were kind, caring and patient and treated them with dignity and respect.
¿ People were able to communicate with staff in their own language which helped to keep them fully involved with the service.
¿ Relatives felt listened to and were positive about the person-centred service their family members received. Relatives told us the provider was flexible in accommodating their needs.
¿ Relatives were comfortable in approaching the provider. Although nobody we spoke with raised any issues or concerns, all of them were confident that the necessary action would be taken if they did have an issue.
¿ Relatives told us care workers were knowledgeable about their roles and knew how their family members liked to be supported. All of the feedback received highlighted confidence with the safety of the service.
¿ People were cared for by staff who felt valued and supported in their role.
¿ The provider had created links in the local area to help support people in the community. Relatives and health and social care professionals had confidence in the abilities of the registered manager and spoke positively about the service.
Rating at last inspection: We were not able to rate this service at the last inspection as the provider had only been providing personal care to two people for a limited period of time. This meant that although we were able to carry out an inspection we did not find enough information and evidence about parts of the key questions we ask about services, or the experiences of people using the service, to provide a rating for each of the five questions and an overall rating for the service. (Report published 30 August 2018).
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the outcome of the previous inspection. We had been in regular contact with the provider to confirm if they were continuing to provide a service to people.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection guidelines. We may inspect sooner if any concerning information is received.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection they were supporting two people in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Not everyone using Daallo Care Services Ltd receives regulated activity; 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.
Both people had been receiving personal care since May 2018. This meant that although we were able to carry out an inspection we did not find enough information and evidence about parts of the key questions we ask about services, or the experiences of people using the service, to provide a rating for each of the five questions and an overall rating for the service. We were therefore not able to rate the service against the characteristics for inadequate, requires improvement, good and outstanding ratings at this inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There were inconsistencies between the two care records we reviewed. Records did not contain sufficient and detailed information about the care and support people received.
Risk assessments covered a range of factors that people were at risk of, including environmental assessments to ensure people’s homes were safe. However not all risks were fully addressed with sufficient information available for staff to follow to keep people safe.
People who were supported with their medicines did not always have the full up-to-date information recorded in their care records.
Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and were confident the registered manager would take the appropriate action if they had any concerns. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure people were supported by suitable staff.
Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and there was evidence people had consented to their care, with records in place where people lacked capacity. However, one care record did not fully reflect how consent had been sought in line with best practice.
Care workers were positive about the supervision they had received but the agreed regular cycle of supervision had not been carried out at the time of the inspection. An induction and mandatory training programme was in place when new staff started to support them in their role.
Care records highlighted if people were supported with their nutritional needs and if they had any dietary preferences. However, one person’s nutritional risk had not been highlighted and more information was required to provide a more accurate summary of the support that was given.
People and their relatives had been actively involved in decisions about their agreed care and support. We received positive comments about the kind and caring nature of care workers and how respectful they were when carrying out their tasks.
Care workers did not always accurately complete records of the care and support people received.
The provider listened to people’s preferences with regard to how they wanted staff to support them with their cultural or religious needs.
People were provided with information on how to make a complaint and were able to share their views and opinions about the service they received.
The service promoted an open and honest culture. We received positive feedback about the management team and staff felt well supported. Staff were confident they could raise any concerns or issues, knowing they would be listened to and acted upon.
There were arrangements in place to assess and monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service and use these findings to make ongoing improvements. As the service had not been providing care and support for a substantial period of time, some of these policies had not yet been enacted.
The management team were proactive and responsive to the feedback they received about the shortfalls we had identified. We asked the registered manager to send us an action plan about the improvements they planned to make.
We will be in contact with the provider as the service develops and will aim to return within six months to carry out the next inspection and provide a rating for the service.