Universal Care Agency Ltd

Universal Care Agency is a provider of community home care services providing personal care to three people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Quality assurance processes had not identified concerns or driven sufficient improvement relating to service quality. Records were not always complete or reflective of people’s current needs. Action was not taken when people fed back about their care. The lack of robust quality assurance meant people were at risk of receiving poor quality care.

We have made a recommendation in relation to people’s care records and risk assessments. This is because risk assessments and care plans were not always up to date or complete. This meant people were at increased risk of harm. However, people were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well which reduced the risk of people receiving unsafe care.

The providers infection control policy did not provide enough guidance for staff and we found staff were not undertaking COVID-19 testing in accordance with Government guidance at the time of the inspection. Staff demonstrated they wore Personal Protective Equipment appropriately.

Improvement was needed in relation to a medicine record and the safe recruitment of staff. The registered person told us how they planned to make these necessary improvements.

The registered person told us of the difficulty they had regarding the recruitment and retention of staff. This had resulted in them having to stop providing care to some people. The registered person and staff member felt there was enough staff to support the people they currently cared for.

The provider had a safeguarding policy that was understood by staff. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 14 August 2021). There were two breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

We issued a warning notice requiring the provider to make improvements regarding the safe care and treatment of people and the governance of the service.

We undertook an inspection to confirm the provider met legal requirements (published 28 October 2021). Not enough progress had been made and an extension was given due to the providers circumstances. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.

You can read these reports, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Universal Care Agency on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At this inspection, we identified one breach of regulation in relation to good governance. Due to the small number of people being supported we did not have enough evidence to make a judgement about medicines management. We found some improvement regarding risk management had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulation relating to this. However, further improvement was still needed.

Why we inspected

We undertook this focused inspection to confirm the provider now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those Key Questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

This service has been rated requires improvement for the last seven consecutive inspections. The service remains rated requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection. We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Please see the Safe and Well led sections of this full report.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

We have identified one breach in relation to good governance. We made a recommendation in relation to risk management.

Follow up

We have imposed a condition on the providers registration which requires them to submit a monthly report to the Care Quality Commission on the actions being taken to ensure improvements are being made to quality and safety of the service.

We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Universal Care Agency is a provider of community home care services providing personal care to seven people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider had not taken appropriate steps to improve the service and to ensure people received safer care. An action plan was in place to address the warning notice served by CQC at our previous inspection. However, none of the requirements of the warning notice had been met.

Risk assessments and care plans did not always provide guidance to staff about how to support

people effectively. Care plans and risk assessments did not always contain enough detail about people’s specific medical conditions.

‘As required’ medicine records were not always in place. Where they were in place, they did not include enough detail to guide staff as to their appropriate use.

Quality assurance systems had not been effective in identifying the concerns we found at this inspection or fully addressed concerns from our last inspection.

This was a targeted inspection that considered medicines management, safe care and treatment and governance. Based on our inspection of these areas we were not assured the provider was meeting the Regulations.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 13 August 2021) and there were two breaches of regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection enough improvement had not been made, and the provider was still in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

We undertook this targeted inspection to check whether the Warning Notice we previously served in relation to Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had been met. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains Requires Improvement.

CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

We have identified breaches in relation to medicines management, risk management and good governance at this inspection.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Universal Care Agency is a provider of community home care services providing personal care to eight people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

When we completed the onsite inspection there was not a registered manager in post since July 2016. Following the inspection, the nominated individual has applied to become the registered manager.

Quality assurance systems had not always been effective in identifying the concerns we found at this inspection or fully addressed concerns from our last inspection.

The provider had not always ensured safe recruitment practices were taking place. Gaps in candidate's employment history had not always been identified or followed up. This meant the provider was not always able to consider whether the applicant's background impacted on their suitability to work with vulnerable people. We made a recommendation about this.

The provider had not updated their Infection control policy to reflect current guidance in relation to COVID-19. We have made a recommendation about this.

The provider had not always reported safeguarding concerns to CQC. This meant we were unable to monitor the service effectively. We have made a recommendation about this.

Systems were in place to seek feedback from people, their relatives. The staff we spoke with felt well supported through training and supervision.

Staff had good access to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and understood the current guidance in relation to wearing PPE.

People and their relatives felt there was enough staff for people to be safely supported.

Staff in the service worked well with each other and external professionals to ensure good health outcomes for people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager demonstrated a willingness to make improvements and during the inspection sent us an action plan of areas they plan to make improvements in.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 27 January 2020) and there was one breach of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection enough improvement had not been made/sustained, and the provider was still in breach of regulations. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last five consecutive inspections.

Since Universal Care Agency registered with CQC to provide personal care to people in their own homes and ratings inspections started it has not achieved an overall rating of Good or a rating of Good in the Well Led question. Universal Care Agency has had five comprehensive inspections and one focused inspection. This inspection was the second focused inspection. Of the previous six inspections, the service has been rated overall Inadequate once and overall Requires Improvement five times. It has been rated Inadequate in the Well Led question three times and Requires Improvement three times.

Why we inspected

We carried out an unannounced focussed inspection of this service on 12 December 2019. A breach of legal requirements was found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve medicines management.

We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Safe and Well-led domains.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has remained as requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. 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 Infinite Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

We have identified breaches in relation to risk management, medicines management and good governance at this inspection.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Universal Care Agency Ltd is a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people living in their own homes. The service provides support to older people, those living with dementia, people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder and those with a sensory impairment and/or physical disability. The service was supporting seven people at the time of the inspection. 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives told us they were safely supported by the service. However, the management of people’s medicines did not always follow current best practice guidance or the provider’s policy and procedures. People’s risks were assessed, and staff knew how to manage risks to people safely, although some records about risks required further detail to ensure guidance for staff who may not be familiar with the person. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse and the actions they should take if concerns arose. The service regularly checked with people and their relatives to make sure any concerns were known about and responded to. Incidents were acted on and the service was improving their analysis of incidents to inform learning.

Peoples needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Policies and procedures were available to staff and those we viewed were based on current best practice. Staff completed training identified by the provider as mandatory and this was up to date. Staff were observed in their role through regular spot checks in people’s homes and met with the manager for supervision. Staff told us they were well supported by supervisory staff and the manager. People were effectively supported with eating and drinking and to access healthcare support when required.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Since our previous inspection a change in the management of the service had improved the culture and quality of the service. There was regular contact between managers, staff and people. Management oversight of the day to day running of the service and quality assurance processes had improved. Some improvements were still required in the assessment and monitoring of regulatory requirements. We have made a recommendation about updating practice in line with current guidance on the assessment and monitoring of registered services. People were regularly asked for their feedback and satisfaction with the service.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind, caring and helpful. Staff understood how to promote people’s dignity and to provide respectful care. People’s care plans evidenced they were developed with people to describe their decisions about how they preferred to receive care. We have made a recommendation about the assessment of people’s needs in line with the Equality Act (2010) to ensure people’s diverse needs are known and met where appropriate.

People told us their care needs were met. Care plans contained person-centred information, and these were regular reviewed. People’s communication needs were known and although no one was receiving end of life care, guidance was available to staff should this be required. There had been no complaints received by the service since our previous inspection. Regular contact with people enabled the service to act promptly on any issues, requests or concerns people raised.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update) The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 04 June 2019) and there were two breaches of regulation. We imposed conditions on the provider’s registration and required them to send us an action plan after the last inspection to show us what they would do and by when to improve. We also required them to send us a monthly update on their progress with the action plan. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations found on the previous inspection. However, there was one breach of regulation found during this inspection. The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last four consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Universal Care Agency Ltd. on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement

We have identified a breach of regulation in relation to the safe management of people’s medicines.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Universal Care Agency Ltd is domiciliary care agency which provides support and personal care to people living in their own home. Not everyone using Universal Care Agency received a 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. At the time of our inspection sixteen people were receiving a regulated activity from the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they were happy being supported by staff from Universal Care Agency Ltd. They told us their needs were met in a personalised way by staff who were kind and caring. People also told us they felt their rights were upheld, they were empowered to make their own choices and were involved in the development of their care plans. However, we identified significant concerns with the leadership and management of the service.

The provider did not have any oversight of the day to day operations of the service and had not acted promptly when an allegation of abuse was made. Governance arrangements and quality assurance systems were not robust. The manager had not used effective systems to carry out quality monitoring and was out of touch with a number of key areas of the service.

The service met the characteristics of Requires Improvement in four areas and Inadequate in one area. More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

The service was rated as Requires Improvement at the last full comprehensive inspection, the report for which was published on 17 April 2018.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous inspection rating.

Enforcement:

The provider was operating from a location that was not registered with the Care Quality Commission. During the inspection, we visited an office of the address 141 Albert Road, Southsea and found that regulated personal care activity was being managed directly from this address. We are currently taking action to address these issues in line with our enforcement policies and procedures.

Two breaches of regulatory requirements were identified at this inspection. We are currently considering our regulatory response. Full information about CQC's regulatory response to more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

This inspection was undertaken on the 6 and 12 March 2018. Not everyone using Universal Care Limited receives a 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. At the time of the inspection 18 people were receiving a personal care service from Universal Care Limited.

This service was in Special Measures as the well led section of the report had been rated inadequate following two consecutive inspections. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements had been made and it is therefore no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service has now been removed from Special Measures as per CQC’s Special Measures Policy.

Following the inspection in May 2017 three breaches of regulations were identified. At this inspection we found action had been taken to become compliant with these although further work was required to ensure the newly introduced quality assurance procedures were embedded in practice and identified all areas for improvement we found during the inspection.

The service did not have a registered manager at the time of the inspection. 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 had appointed a person to manage the service who had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission. Their application was being assessed at the time of the inspection.

Some risks to people had been individually assessed and risk management plans were in place to mitigate these risks. However, records did not show that these had been reviewed and these did not cover all risks which had been identified during the assessment process.

At the time of the inspection staff were not administering oral medicines to anyone. Where staff were prompting people to take medicines recording systems were not in place. We have made a recommendation that the service follows best practice guidance and introduces appropriate recording tools for the administration and prompting of medicines including prescribed topical creams.

We received positive feedback from people about the service. People who used the service expressed satisfaction and spoke highly of the staff and provider’s representative. All the people and family members who were asked if they would recommend the service to others said they would.

People and their families told us they felt safe. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to prevent, identify and report abuse.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and appropriate checks were undertaken, which helped make sure only suitable staff were employed to care for people in their own homes. There were sufficient numbers of care staff to maintain the schedule of visits and ensure a high level of continuity for people. Staff completed an induction programme and were appropriately supported in their work. Staff had received relevant training and arrangements were in place to refresh this regularly.

There was an infection control policy in place and protective equipment such as gloves and aprons were provided to staff to minimise the spread of infection. People confirmed that safe management of infection control risks were adhered to.

People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected. Staff knew the people they provided care to well and understood their physical and social needs. Staff were able to describe how to meet people’s needs effectively. Staff supported people to access healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff, the manager and the provider’s representative knew how legislation designed to protect people's rights affected their work. They always asked for consent from people before providing care.

People and, when appropriate, their families were involved in discussions about their care planning and given the opportunity to provide feedback on the service. They were also supported to raise complaints should they wish to.

At the time of the inspection no one using the service was receiving end of life care. However the manager assured us that people would be supported to receive a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

People and their families told us they felt the service was well-led and were positive about the provider’s representative who understood the responsibilities of their role.

We identified one breach of Regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Universal Care Agency Ltd is a domiciliary care service which provides care and support to adults and older persons; some of whom are living with dementia, who live in their own homes. At the time of the inspection 18 were receiving support with their personal care. There were 17 care staff which included one senior care worker, one recruitment co-ordinator and one staff member that planned people’s care. There was a manager who was overseeing the day to day management of the service and a director who was also the nominated individual.

There was not a registered manager at the time of the inspection. A registered manager had not been in post since July 2016. The provider had recruited a manager who would be applying to the Commission to become the registered manager when they commenced their employment for the provider on 16 May 2017. 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.

At the last inspection in December 2016, the service was placed into Special Measures as it was Inadequate overall.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Requires improvement’. However, the service will remain in 'special measures'. We do this when services have been rated as 'Inadequate' in any key question over two consecutive comprehensive inspections. The ‘Inadequate’ rating does not need to be in the same question at each of these inspections for us to place or keep services in special measures.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

At our last inspection in December 2016 we found the provider did not always follow safe recruitment processes. At this inspection we found the provider continued to not follow safe recruitment practices.

At the last inspection in December 2016 we found risk assessments were completed but not always dated and did not contain all the information on how risks to people could be minimised. At this inspection we did not find an improvement with this concern.

At the last inspection in December 2016 we found staff did not receive an induction programme and did not always receive training from the provider or have their competencies checked. At this inspection we did not find any improvement with this concern and we found staff did not always receive training which was specific to people’s needs.

At the last inspection in December 2016 we found systems to assess the overall quality and safety of the service were not in place. At this inspection we found quality and safety audits were in place but they were ineffective.

At the last inspection in December 2016 we found people’s personal information was not always kept private. At this inspection we found a person’s personal care plan had been shared with a relative of another person who was in receipt of personal care.

At the last inspection in December 2016 we found there was a lack of communication between the management team, people, staff and external professionals and this had an effect on the care people received. At this inspection we found communication between the manager, staff, people and external professionals had improved but required further improvement.

At the last inspection in December 2016 we found staff and management had a limited understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People did not always receive timely support from an external health care professional. Care records were mostly personalised although inconsistent with detailing how people would like to receive their care. Complaints received had not always been identified as a complaint, investigated and followed up. The provider and manager had not notified the Commission of two safeguarding concerns and had not investigated these concerns appropriately and staff did notify external health care professionals or receive a supervision. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in these areas.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and there was good continuity of care workers. There were no concerns with medicine practices. People received support with food and fluids when required. Staff felt when the manager made themselves available, they were approachable and had a caring nature and felt confident in raising concerns to the manager and felt supported to question practice.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Universal Care Agency Ltd is a domiciliary care service which provides care and support to adults and older persons; some of whom are living with dementia, who live in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 15 people using the service and of these 15 people eight were receiving support with their personal care. There were six care staff, two senior care staff and two staff that planned people’s care. There was a manager who was overseeing the day to day management of the service and who would be applying to become the registered manager and a director who was also the nominated individual. Both the manager and the director provided care to people.

There was not a registered manager at the time of the inspection. A registered manager had not been in post since July 2016. 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 overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

Safe recruitment processes were not always followed. Checks were not always completed to ensure staff working were off good character and were fit for work. Although care staff knew how to keep people safe and could identify signs or potential abuse, systems were not in place to investigate allegations of potential abuse. Risk assessments were completed but not always dated and information on how to support people with moving and handling was not always included. Although staff occasionally arrived late to people’s visits there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

People felt staff had sufficient skills and knowledge to care for them; however staff did not always receive an induction programme, training or supervision and appraisal. Staff and management had limited understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it should be used when people were deemed to lack capacity. People did not always receive timely support from an external health care professional.

People’s personal information was not always kept private. Care records were mostly personalised although inconsistent with detailing how people would like to receive their care.

Care plans were in place and people’s needs were regularly assessed and reviewed by staff and people were involved in the assessment of their needs. However care plans may not always be up to date and may not include accurate information about the care they received. Risk assessments were not dated and did not contain all the information on what risks there were to people and how they could be minimised.

Complaints had been received, however had not always been identified as a complaint, investigated and followed up.

There was a lack of communication between the management team, people, staff and external professionals and this had an effect on the care people received. Systems to assess the overall quality and safety of the service were not in place. The provider and manager had not notified the Commission of two safeguarding concerns.

Records kept by the manager to monitor staff training did not always demonstrate the training staff had received. Records were not in place which detailed the safe management of recruitment. Care records and staff records were not always available to view and were not always securely stored.

Staff followed medicines procedures and people were supported with their medicines safely. People were supported to have sufficient food and fluids. Care staff were friendly, kind, polite and treated people with dignity and respect. People received care which respected their day to day decisions and choices.

Staff felt when the manager made themselves available, they were approachable and had a caring nature and felt confident in raising concerns to the manager and felt supported to question practice.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We undertook this announced focused inspection on 18 January 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Universal Care Agency Ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

At the inspection on 18 January 2016 we found that sufficient improvements had been made and the provider and registered manager had met the requirements of the warning notices.

Universal Care Agency Ltd is a domiciliary care service which provides care and support to adults and older persons in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were ten people using the service. There were twelve care staff who provided care to people, a registered manager two recruitment officers and one co-ordinator who scheduled people’s care and managed staff recruitment.

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 service carried out safe recruitment and selection processes before new staff were employed to work with people. Checks were made to ensure staff were of good character and suitable for their role.

Staff were provided with appropriate support, induction, supervision and professional development. However staff were not always appraised.

The provider had an effective system in place to deal with complaints, but did not always deal with requests about people’s care in a timely manner.

Improvements had been made in assessing the quality of the service and monitoring of staff training, incidents and accidents.

We found the provider had made some improvements with understanding their role and responsibilities. The provider had informed the Local Authority and investigated the potential safeguarding concern; however the Commission had not been notified of a report of potential abuse.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of infection because staff had received relevant training and there was appropriate guidance for them to follow.

People were cared for by staff who received relevant training and support. The provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

There was not an effective process in place for monitoring and planning training. The provider had an arrangement for staff to attend training at care homes. However this training was not specific to a service provided by a domiciliary care service. There was no plan for training for the forthcoming year.

We were told by people who used the service that staff were rarely late for their calls. They told us that staff contacted them if there was any reason if the care visit was going to be delayed. This was confirmed in conversations we had with members of staff.

There was a plan for quality assurance that included seeking the views of people who used the service. This was due to be implemented in December 2012.