You are here

Local Care Services Limited Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 May 2018

This was our first inspection of the service at its current location. On 17 April 2018 we spoke by phone with people who used the service. We visited the office on 18 April 2018 and spoke by phone with care staff on 19 April 2018. We gave the provider notice we were coming as Local Care Services is a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure someone would be in the office to speak with us. Local Care Services provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults, most of whom are older people. At the time of our inspection 58 people used the service.

There was an experienced registered manager in post when we inspected. 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 felt safe using the service, and we saw risks were well assessed. Staff were recruited safely, had a good induction and on-going training, and had regular meetings to discuss their performance and any support they needed. Staff understood how to recognise and report any concerns about any potential abuse. The registered manager notified CQC about any incidents when this was necessary. People told us staff would call health professionals, such as doctors and district nurses as required.

There were good processes in place for managing calls which meant people saw regular staff at the times they expected. If staff were running late there were procedures in place to ensure people were contacted in a timely way.

Medicines were managed safely. An emerging issue with the recording of application of creams was addressed immediately during our inspection. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) when they needed to use it.

People made decisions about their care. There were appropriate processes in place to ensure the provider was working to the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in assessing people’s capacity to make specific decisions and give consent to their care and support. Staff had a good understanding of the importance of offering choice to people. People told us staff asked what they wanted to eat, or prepared meals for them according to menus they had written.

Care was planned in a person-centred way. People told us staff were kind and caring and included them and their relatives in writing and reviewing care plans. Staff understood how to protect people’s privacy and dignity, and we saw people’s independence was promoted. The planning and delivery of care was responsive to changes in people’s needs and preferences.

There were processes in place to ensure complaints were addressed appropriately, and people were asked if they were happy with the way their concerns were addressed and resolved. We saw the service received regular compliments about the quality of care provided.

We received good feedback about leadership and quality in the service from people, their relatives and health and social care professionals. The registered manager had processes in place to involve people and staff in the running of the service, and ensured quality of service provision was measured and tested at regular intervals.


Inspection areas



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was safe.

Risks associated with people�s care, support and environment were well assessed. Calls were planned to ensure people had support from regular staff at times they preferred.

Staff were recruited safely and understood how to report any concerns about people�s safety.

People received their medicines when they needed them. An issue with the recording of creams was addressed during our inspection.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had a detailed induction and on-going training. Regular supervision meetings helped staff remain effective in their roles.

There were good processes in place to assess and document people�s ability to consent to aspects of their care and support.

Staff referred people to health professionals when needed.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives said staff were friendly and caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect, and we saw independence was promoted.

Care planning included people and their relatives.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person-centred and based on a thorough assessment of people�s needs.

People and their relatives were involved in regular reviews of their needs and preferences.

People had access to information about how to complain, and systems were in place to ensure any complaints or concerns were addressed.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was well-led.

People told us they were happy with the quality of the service, and we received positive feedback about how the service was managed.

There were effective systems in place to ensure quality was regularly monitored.

People and staff had regular opportunity to give feedback about the service.