Background to this inspection
Updated
27 November 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This was the first inspection of time A & L Enablement Services (Care & Support) Limited since registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in January 2017.
This inspection site visit took place on 13 November 2018. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the service provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure care workers and the provider would be available to speak with us about the service.
This was a comprehensive inspection and was undertaken by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experiences of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before our inspection visit, we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at statutory notifications sent to us from the provider. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.
The provider sent us their completed Provider Information Return (PIR), as requested. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to plan our inspection visit. During our visit we found the PIR was an accurate assessment of how the service operated.
We conducted telephone interviews with nine people and five relatives of people to obtain their views of the service they received.
During our site visit we spoke with the provider, the assistant manager and three care workers.
We looked at three people's care records and other records related to people’s care, including risk assessments, medicines records and daily logs. This was to see how people were cared for and supported and to assess whether people’s care delivery matched their records.
We reviewed three staff files to check staff were recruited safely and were trained to deliver the care and support people required. We looked at records of the checks completed by the management team to assure themselves people received a good quality service, including complaints, medicine records and accident and incident records.
Updated
27 November 2018
This inspection site visit took place on 13 November 2018. The inspection was announced.
A & L Enablement Services (Care & Support) Limited is registered to provide personal care support to people. At the time of our inspection the service employed 17 care workers and 27 people were in receipt of the regulated activity personal care. The service is located in Coventry in the West Midlands.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes, including, older people, younger adults, people with mental health problems, physical and learning disabilities and people living with dementia.
This was the first time A & L Enablement Services (Care & Support) Limited had been inspected under its current registration. The service had previously been registered under a different provider.
The service had a registered manager. 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 registered manager is also the provider for the service and is referred to as the provider throughout this report.
People felt safe with care workers who supported them. The provider’s recruitment procedures reduced the risks of the service employing unsuitable staff. The Provider understood their responsibility to comply with the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
Care workers understood how to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and care workers understood how these should be managed. Care workers completed a comprehensive induction when they began working at the service to prepare them for their role. The on-going training care workers received equipped them with the skills and knowledge needed to support people effectively. People and relatives were confident care workers had the knowledge and skills needed to meet their needs.
People were complimentary about the care shown by care workers and they received their care calls from care workers they knew. Care calls were consistently made at, and for the length of the time agreed. Care workers practices were regularly checked to make sure they worked in line with the provider’s policies and procedures. There were enough suitably qualified care workers to provide all planned care calls and to respond to people’s needs changing needs.
People and, where appropriate, relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. Care workers understood people's needs and had time to develop relationships with people. Care records reflected people’s current needs and gave care workers the information needed to ensure care and support was provided in line with people’s preferences.
People, relatives and care workers said the management team was approachable. Care workers felt supported and valued by the management team and ‘loved’ working for the service. People and relatives knew how to raise any concerns or complaints and were confident any issues raised would be listened and responded to effectively. No complaints had been made. People’s right to privacy and dignity was respected and their independence promoted.
The management team and care workers shared common values about the aims and objectives of the service. The provider’s quality monitoring checks were not always effective. Action was taken to address this. People and relatives were encouraged to share their views about the service to drive forward improvements. Whilst no improvement suggestion had been made the provider had identified areas for development which had been or were being addressed.
People and relatives were very satisfied with the service provided and the way the service was managed. Systems were in place to manage people’s medicines safely and care workers had received training to do this.