You are here

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 November 2016

The inspection took place on 12 and 13 October 2016 and was announced.

Lillyfields Care provides a domiciliary care service for people living in Petersfield and the surrounding area. At the time of the inspection 60 people were receiving care visits.

Lillyfields Care is not required to have a registered manager in post. This is because the provider is an individual person who acts as a registered manager as well as the registered provider. 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 on 18 September 2014 we found a breach in regulations. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the implementation of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. As a result of the breach, the provider sent us an action plan detailing how they would ensure the regulations were being met. We found this action had been completed fully.

People were asked for their consent before care or treatment was provided. Staff told us they asked people for their consent before providing any care. The provider had taken action to ensure that those people who did not have capacity to consent to their care were identified and that they followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when providing care.

People were protected from abuse. Staff had knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and acted on these to keep people safe. There was a safeguarding policy which was available to staff. This detailed the action staff should take in these events along with contact telephone numbers for the relevant authorities where they could seek advice and report concerns.

Risks to people’s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise these risks. Assessments were carried out before people accessed the service to identify any potential risks to their safety. Care plans were written which addressed the risks so that staff were informed about how to provide care in a way which protected people.

People were supported by sufficient staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. The allocation of staff was carried out part electronically and part manually. The system ensured consistency of staff for people, identifying appropriate travel routes and provided sufficient travel time. The system ensured that any shortfalls in availability of staff could be identified and recruited to. This ensured there were always enough staff available to cover all calls.

Recruitment and induction practices were safe. Relevant checks such as identity checks, obtaining appropriate references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) were being completed for staff. The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and helps prevent unsuitable people from working with people who use care and support services.

There was a system in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines. Some people had their medicines administered by staff. Staff had received training to ensure they were able to administer medicines safely. Information was recorded in people’s care plans which informed staff where medicines were kept in people’s homes and how to administer them.

Staff had received appropriate training to meet people’s needs. Records showed that staff had received training in key areas such as infection control, fire training, moving and handling, food safety and health and safety. Staff told us they had received sufficient training to meet the needs of people. Staff received an induction in line with the Care Certificate.

Staff had regular supervision meetings with management and an annual appraisal. Staff received extra supervision and appraisal during their inducti

Inspection areas



Updated 2 November 2016

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise the signs of abuse.

Risks were identified and appropriately addressed.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff had received medication training in order to administer medicines safely.



Updated 2 November 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had received appropriate training to meet people’s needs and had detailed knowledge about people’s individual preferences.

People gave consent to their care. The provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The service liaised with community healthcare professionals to ensure that people had access to health services.



Updated 2 November 2016

The staff were caring.

Staff treated people in a kind and compassionate way. They took time to get to know people.

Staff described how they provided care to people and respected their dignity.

Independence was promoted wherever possible.



Updated 2 November 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff responded appropriately to people’s needs due to the detailed care plans.

The service sought feedback from people, relatives and staff and responded appropriately to it.



Updated 2 November 2016

The service was well led.

There was a positive and open culture.

The registered provider demonstrated good management and leadership, through the effective management of the service and the quality of care provided. She was supported by the management team.

The provider actively monitored the quality of care and took appropriate actions where necessary to drive service improvements.