You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 June 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on the 18 and 20 April 2018.

This was the service’s first rated inspection since they registered with the CQC in February 2017.

This was an announced inspection which meant the provider was given notice before we visited. This was because the location provides a home care service. We wanted to make sure the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to support our inspection.

Cura Homecare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, younger disabled adults and children. At time of our inspection 25 people, including two children, were using the service.

The service had 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.

People told us they felt safe when receiving support from staff. They praised Cura Homecare for providing a punctual and reliable service. People told us they would recommend Cura Homecare to others.

People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect. They said they had built good relationships with staff and there was continuity in care.

Staff spoke positively about the people they supported. They told us they would go that extra mile to ensure people were happy and comfortable.

Staff had the knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and act on them to protect people.

People’s medicines were mostly managed and administered safely. There had been three medicines errors the past 12 months; however the registered manager had put a new system in place to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

Risks to people’s health and safety had been identified and actions put in place to minimise these risks. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify any patterns. Where needed, lessons were learnt.

There was a sufficient number of staff to meet people’s needs. People were matched with staff with the skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs.

The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and people’s consent was sought before commencing their care.

Staff received relevant training such as safeguarding, mental capacity and manual handling to enable them to carry out their roles. Staff said they received regular supervisions (one-to-one) meetings with their line manager.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals when needed.

People’s support plans were clearly written and we saw evidence that people and/or their relatives were involved in the development of the plan.

The registered manager told us they valued their staff and wanted the service to be a place where staff enjoyed coming to work. Staff spoke positively about the support they received.

Staff, people and professionals said the registered manager was approachable and would act on any concerns they had.

The registered manager continually looked at innovative ways of improving the service and getting people involved. They had made various links with agencies in the community.

There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the care provided. Audits were completed and any shortfalls identified were dealt with.

Inspection areas



Updated 26 June 2018

This service was safe.

People said they felt safe when receiving care. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs safely.

Peoples� medicines were mostly managed and administered safely.

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse. Risks people faced were assessed and action taken to manage them.



Updated 26 June 2018

This service was effective.

People and their relatives spoke positively about staff and told us they were skilled to meet their needs.

Staff understood whether people were able to consent to their care and were aware of action they needed to take where people did not have capacity to consent.

People�s changing needs were monitored to make sure their health needs were responded to promptly.



Updated 26 June 2018

This service was caring.

People spoke positively about staff and the care they received.

Care was delivered in a way that took account of people�s individual needs and maximised their independence.

Staff maintained people�s dignity and upheld their rights. People were treated with respect and their privacy was protected.



Updated 26 June 2018

This service was responsive.

People were supported to make their views known about their care and support. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

People were supported to maintain their independence and access the community.

People were aware of the complaints procedures and felt confident the registered manager would act on their concerns if needed.



Updated 26 June 2018

This service was well-led.

The service had strong leadership and staff felt supported by management. People told us they felt the service was well managed.

Systems were in place to review incidents and audit performance, to help identify any themes, trends or lessons to be learned.

Quality assurance systems involved people who use the service, their representatives and staff and were used to improve the quality of the service.