Background to this inspection
Updated
19 October 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This comprehensive announced inspection took place on 20 and 25 September 2018. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors. On 21 September two experts by experience contacted people by telephone and obtained their feedback about the service. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection we looked at information we held about the service. This information included statutory notifications that the provider had sent to the Care Quality Commission. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return [PIR]. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We discussed the PIR with the registered manager during the inspection.
During the inspection at the office we spoke with the registered manager, care coordinator, supervisor and finance manager. We spoke with ten people using the service, four people’s relatives and eight care workers by telephone.
We reviewed a variety of records which related to people's individual care and the running of the service. These records included care files of eight people using the service, nine staff records and a range of other records including policies and procedures that related to the management and running of the service.
Updated
19 October 2018
Gentlecare (UK Limited – London) is a domiciliary care agency. It is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service provides care to people with a range of care needs including those living with dementia, sensory impairments and physical disabilities. It does not provide nursing care. There were 44 people using the service at the time of the inspection.
Not everyone using Gentlecare (UK Limited – London receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service 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.
This comprehensive inspection was announced. We gave the provider two working days’ notice of the inspection because the service provides care to people in their own homes and we wanted to make sure that the provider was available on the day of the inspection.
The previous comprehensive inspection took place on 9 and 15 February 2016. We rated the service 'Requires Improvement' in the area of Safe. A focused inspection on 22 December 2016 found that the provider had addressed our concerns about the way risks to people were managed and we rated the service ‘Good’ in the area of Safe and ‘Good’ overall.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People using the service and their relatives informed us that they were happy with the care and support that they received. People received consistency of care from staff that they knew.
People using the service told us that staff treated them with respect and they felt safe when staff supported them with their care and other tasks. They told us that staff were caring and reliable and respected their dignity and privacy. Staff knew the importance of respecting people’s differences and human rights.
Arrangements were in place to keep people safe. The service had a safeguarding policy and whistleblowing procedure. Staff knew how to identify abuse and understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people and reporting all concerns.
Risks to people’s safety were identified and monitored. Guidance to manage and minimise any risks of people and staff being harmed was in place. Incidents were investigated and action was taken to minimise risk of future recurrence. Learning from incidents led to improvements in the service.
Arrangements were in place to make sure medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.
Appropriate checks were made before staff started to work to make sure they were suitable to work with people using the service.
The provider ensured that there were enough staff in place with the right skills mix to meet people's needs. Staff understood the importance of obtaining people’s consent before supporting them with personal care and other tasks.
People and where applicable their relatives were fully involved in making decisions about people’s care. The service was flexible and responsive. People were listened to and staff respected the choices they made and supported people’s independence.
People’s care plans were person-centred. They included detailed information about the care people needed and their preferences, so staff had the relevant information that they needed to meet people’s needs.
The service liaised closely with healthcare and social care professionals to make sure people’s needs were met.
People and their relatives had opportunities to feedback about the service and issues raised by them were addressed.
Staff received training and learning which was relevant to their role. They received ongoing support through supervision and day to day contact with the registered manager and other senior staff. The performance and development of staff were regularly reviewed. Staff were encouraged to contribute ideas and suggestions about improving and developing working practices and other areas of the service.
There were a range of systems in place to check, monitor and develop the service. Action was taken to make improvements when deficiencies were identified. People and their relatives told us they thought the service was well run and would recommend it.
Further information is in the detailed findings below