You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 December 2019

About the service

Shirecare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes within and around Nottingham and Derby. It provides a service to older and younger adults living with a range of health conditions and needs, to live independently in the community. Not everyone using Shirecare receives a 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. At the time of our inspection, 56 people were receiving personal care as part of their care package.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

Improvements had been made to the systems and processes that monitored the quality and safety of the service. Further work was required to implement ways of analysing incidents and late or missed calls for themes and patterns to support any learning opportunities. The registered manager took immediate action during the inspection to address this.

Improvements had been made to how medicines were managed. Action was still required to ensure hand written medicine administration records, were checked and signed by a second staff member to avoid mistakes being made. During the inspection the registered manager took action to address this. Following the inspection, the registered manager confirmed this had been completed and a new system had been introduced.

Whilst every effort was made for people to receive care from regular staff at the times they wanted, a reoccurring theme from people was they had experienced late calls. Three people reported they had experienced a missed call; however this could not be evidenced.

People's needs, preferences and routines were assessed and acted upon. Guidance provided in care plans for staff had been improved upon. However, guidance and information were not consistently detailed.

Risks associated with people’s care needs, including the environment had been assessed and staff had guidance of how to manage any known risks. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and the registered manager was aware of their role and responsibilities to act on any safeguarding concerns.

Staff recruitment was ongoing and at the time of the inspection, sufficient staff were deployed to meet people's care needs. Robust checks were completed on staff's suitability to provide care before they commenced their employment.

People were protected from the risk of cross contamination because best practice guidance in infection control practice was followed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff received an induction and improvements had been made to the training staff received. Staff had spot checks completed to review their practice to ensure standards were maintained.

People were supported with their health care needs. Staff monitored people's health and care needs and shared information with healthcare professionals when required. Where people required assistance with nutrition and hydration needs, staff had detailed guidance of the support people required.

People were complimentary about staff and considered them to be kind and caring. At the time of the inspection no person was receiving end of life care, however staff had received training in this area of care. People received care and support that respected their privacy and dignity. People's communication and sensory needs were assessed.

The providers' complaints procedure had been shared with people and people received opportunities to share their experience about the service.

The registered manager and provider understood their registration regulatory responsibilities.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating fo

Inspection areas



Updated 21 December 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.



Updated 21 December 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 21 December 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 21 December 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 21 December 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.