You are here

Care For Freedom Limited Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 April 2018

This was the first inspection since the service registered on 6 February 2017. The service was previously registered at a different location.

Care for Freedom Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community [and specialist housing]. It provides a service to adults who live with mental health conditions.

“Not everyone using Care for Freedom 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.”

The service has 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.

Care for Freedom are an “all-inclusive” organisation, offering their support so that all in the community can access their specialist skills and recovery-based service.

People felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about how to identify potential risks and understood their responsibilities in respect of safeguarding people. They had received safeguarding training.

Safe and robust recruitment processes were in place and had been followed to ensure that staff were suitable for the role they were employed for. There were sufficient numbers of staff assigned to meet people's needs in a timely way.

Staff were well supported in their roles. We saw that there was a comprehensive induction in place as well as on-going and refresher training in a range of topics relevant to their area of work. Staff were positive about the training they received. Staff received individual supervisions and attended regular team meetings.

The provider promoted training for all staff, ensuring that the management team were also trained to the highest standards. The provider used quality accredited schemes, ensuring that staff and managers were trained to deliver person centred care which under pined good practice and ensured both staff and people who they support have up to date and relevant information.

People were involved in planning how they wanted to be supported and how their care and support was provided. People had a detailed care plan which took account of their individual needs, preferences and choices.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed and measures were in place to mitigate and reduce these where possible. All care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed to ensure that they captured any changes to people’s needs and were current.

Consent was gained from people before any support was provided. People were supported to make decisions about their care and support. Staff and managers were aware of the need for decisions being made on behalf of people were in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to access health and social care professionals to help maintain their health and wellbeing, and the service worked in partnership with external partners to provide holistic care. Care plans detailed people’s support needs in relation to their health and the support required from the service. People received their medicines in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions.

People had developed positive relationships with the staff who supported them and also with office staff and managers. People's dignity and privacy was respected. Staff knew people's needs and preferences and supported them to retain as much independence as possible. People were supported to access and participate in activities in their communities.

People and staff found the registered manager and provider to be extremely supportive and approachable and spoke positively about how the service was managed. People felt listened to and their opinions were taken into account. There was a robust complaints policy and procedure in place and concerns were properly investigated and learning shared to help drive improvements. Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place along with audits to help monitor the quality and safety of the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was safe.

People were kept safe by staff who were knowledgeable about the potential risks and signs of abuse.

Potential risks to people's health, well-being or safety were assessed and measures put in place to mitigate risks where possible.

There were enough staff available to meet people�s needs and help keep them safe.

Recruitment processes were robust and pre-employment checks were completed to help make sure that staff were of good character and suitable for the roles they were employed to do.

People were supported to take their medicines regularly and safely, in accordance with the prescriber�s instructions.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who were properly trained and supported in their roles.

Staff received regular support through individual and group supervision.

Staff supported people where required to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Consent was obtained from people. The service worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals when required.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us the staff were kind and caring.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices about how they lived their lives and how they wished to be supported.

The service was person centred. This was evident in conversations with people, staff and management.

People were supported by a small consistent staff team. This enabled them to develop positive and meaningful relationships.

People�s confidentiality was promoted and maintained through effective storage of peoples care records.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff provided flexible and individualised care and support to people.

People's individual care needs and preferences were taken into account when their support was being developed and reviewed.

People's feedback and concerns were acted upon to drive improvement.

There was a robust complaints and compliments system in place.

People were supported to access and participate in activities and events within their local community.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was exceptionally well led and managed.

The management team were 'hands on' and led by example promoting an open and inclusive culture.

People staff, relatives and professionals all gave positive feedback about how the service was managed and the care and support people received.

The registered manager demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the people who used the service, and valued their staff.

The registered manager kept themselves up to date with changes in legislation to ensure continued good practice.

There were a range of quality monitoring checks and audits completed to help ensure that the service provided was of a consistent good quality.