You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The inspection took place on 9 October 2018 and was announced. This was the first rated inspection for Sulem Care Ltd. The service has been registered for almost 12 months, however has been providing personal care since August 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of our inspection there were seven people receiving support

There is a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. There was enough staff employed by the service to help people with their day to day support needs at the times they wanted.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure that people who lived at the scheme were safeguarded from abuse. This included training for staff. Staff we spoke with confirmed they knew how to raise concerns.

There was a process for recording, reporting and analysing incidents, accidents and general near misses to determine what could be improved within the service provision.

Risk assessments and support plans had been completed for everyone who received care to help ensure people's needs were met and to protect people from the risk of harm.

There was personal protective equipment (PPE) available for use, such as gloves and aprons. Staff confirmed they had good supplies of gloves and aprons when supporting people with personal care.

The service supported people with medication. Medication was administered by staff who had the correct training to enable them to do this. Records were kept in line with current guidance.

The service was operating in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and consent was sought in line with people’s best interests.

Staff received training to enable them to support people safely and training records confirmed this. Staff engaged in regular supervision with their manager.

People were treated as individuals, and their choices and preferences were respected by staff.

People’s care plans were person centred and contained details about the person, their likes, dislikes, how they want to be supported and what they could do for themselves.

People's dietary needs were managed with reference to individual preferences and choice.

There was a complaints process in place which. There had been no complaints since the service started providing support.

The service had been providing support to people for eight weeks. The quality assurance system was being developed. Checks were being made each week to people who used the service by telephone or in person to ensure the care was safe and was meeting people’s needs.

The service worked in partnership with other professionals such as the local authorities, Occupational Therapists and dieticians.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor any risks to people's safety.

Staffing numbers were satisfactorily maintained to support people. Staff had been appropriately checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Medicines were administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were supported through induction, supervision and the service's training programme.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. When people were unable to consent, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed.

We saw people's dietary needs were managed with reference to individual preferences and choice.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was caring.

People said staff were caring and friendly.

People told us their privacy was respected and staff were careful to ensure people's dignity was maintained.

People told us they felt involved in their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were completed and were being reviewed when needed so people's care could be monitored.

People's preferences were recorded in respect of personal care routines, getting up and going to bed and likes and dislikes for food and drinks.

A process for managing complaints was in place. People knew how to complain.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager. There was a clear management structure with lines of accountability and staff responsibility which helped promote good service development.

There were a series of on-going audits and checks to ensure standards were being monitored effectively.

The Care Quality Commission had been notified of any reportable incidents.