We carried out a review of the data available to us about Akaba Social UK Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Akaba Social UK Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Akaba Social UK limited is a domiciliary care agency who provide support to people in their own homes and in supported living accommodation. At the time of inspection there were 39 people being supported, not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had safe recruitment practices in place and staff recruited provided the appropriate documents needed to be employed. Where safeguarding concerns had been raised the provider acted promptly to resolve these and has worked with the local safeguarding authority and police to keep people safe.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 21 November 2021). This was a targeted inspection that considered safe. Based on our inspection the rating remains unchanged.
Why we inspected
We undertook this targeted inspection to follow up on specific concerns which we had received about the service. The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns we received around safe recruitment of staff and safeguarding concerns. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Akaba Social UK Limited provides a domiciliary care service which offers personal care, companionship and domestic help to support people living in their own home as well as people living in supported living accommodation.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection the service was supporting 27 people, but only seven of these were receiving a regulated activity.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received safe care and treatment from staff who understood their individual needs and risks.
Staff employed had to undergo a variety of pre-employment checks to ensure they were able to work with vulnerable people. However, the provider had not always followed best practice for safe recruitment of staff as they had not identified gaps in employment. We made a recommendation about this.
Staff ensured that people were supported to access a variety of health and social care services to meet their identified needs.
Staff had regular supervision and yearly appraisals to identify development and learning needs. However, the providers training matrix did not identify when staff had completed mandatory training or when this needed to be renewed. We made a recommendation to the provider about this.
Staff were caring and supportive and respected people’s privacy, dignity and diversity. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and supported to be as independent as possible.
People told us care was person centred. Small care teams provided care that was person centred and staff knew people very well. However, care plans were not always recorded in a person centred way. They did not identify whether people had additional needs when receiving information in line with accessible information standards. We made a recommendation about this.
People felt they could complain without repercussions and told us they found staff and managers approachable.
The provider was passionate about providing good care. However, documentation of evidence to demonstrate the quality of care provided needed to improve. The provider told us they were in the process of advertising for an administration member of staff and we made a recommendation about recording evidence of care.
People found the provider approachable and available and staff echoed this view.
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.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (Published15 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Akaba Social Care UK Ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
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.
People were safeguarded from the potential of harm and their freedoms protected. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.
Staff had received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people. The service worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met. Where appropriate, support and guidance were sought from health care professionals, including GPs and mental health professionals. People were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs. Staff supported people with their medication when required.
Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff were attentive to people's needs and treated people with dignity and respect.
People were supported with activities which interested them. People and their representatives knew how to make a complaint and the service had processes in place to deal with these.
The registered manager had a number of ways of gathering people’s views including talking with people, staff, and relatives. In addition the registered manager also gained people’s views by the use of questionnaires. Quality monitoring audits were completed to help ensure the service was running effectively and to make improvements.
This is a summary of what we found
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they cared for. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
We found that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
The provider had safe and effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe working practice was identified and people were protected.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with their input. Specialist social care, personal care and psychological needs had been identified in care plans where required. People told us that they had been involved in writing their care plans, had given their consent and that they reflected their current needs.
Is the service caring?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Relatives told us staff were very attentive. One told us, "The staff are very caring, kind and thoughtful." We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People we spoke with told us, 'The staff are very good here and help us to reach our potential."
People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed a satisfaction survey. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to raise a concern or how to complain if they were unhappy.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a joined up way.
People completed a range of activities in and outside of the service regularly.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. We were therefore assured that the provider had taken steps to continually improve the service.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
We found that people who use the Akaba Social UK Ltd service were provided with information and support in relation to their care. Their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. One person we spoke with told us that they made decisions on what they wanted to do and the staff were helpful
We saw people were helped by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.
As the service is relatively new the quality assurance systems were immature and information was limited. The provider was positive about developing monitoring systems as the service expands.