You are here

Care 4 U - 466 Melton Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 November 2019

About the service

Care 4 U – 466 Melton Road is a domiciliary care service. The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 70 people using the service.

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

Systems to monitor the quality of the service were in place, and used to develop the service and drive improvement. However, the provider had not identified communication was an area which required improvement. People and their family members said communication with office-based staff was not effective. People told us queries were not consistently responded to, and messages not always passed on, especially messages relating to people not being informed that care staff would be late. Systems recording how information was shared could be improved, such as minutes of meetings and action points to address identified shortfalls.

People were confident to raise concerns should they arise, some people told us issues they had raised had been quickly addressed. People’s views as to the timeliness of visits by care staff were mixed, however many had noted improvements. Systems were in place to monitor the timeliness of visits.

People’s safety was promoted by staff who followed guidance on how to reduce potential risk. This included the use of equipment to support people moving around their home. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had undergone a robust recruitment process. People were supported with their medicines. Staff training in key safety areas promoted people’s safety, which included staff knowledge and understanding of reporting potential safeguarding concerns, the management of medicines, and the importance of following infection control procedures.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their life 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. People’s needs and expectations of care were assessed, which included assessing people’s needs based on their cultural diversity and communication needs. People were supported by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge, which included staff’s ability to communicate with people in their preferred language. Staff were supported through ongoing training and supervision to enable them to provide good quality care. Staff promoted people’s health by liaising with health care professionals when required.

Most people spoke positively about the care they received and the approach of staff towards them. People’s experiences about their care was often influenced by whether they received care from staff who they were familiar with, who were able to communicate effectively with them.

People and family members were involved in the development of care plans, which enabled staff to provide the care and support each person had agreed was appropriate to them.

The management team were aware of their role and responsibilities in meeting their legal obligations. The provider worked with key stakeholders to facilitate good quality care for people, by accessing training and shaping the provision of domiciliary care. They worked with key organisations to share and keep up to date with good practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update.

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 13 November 2018) and there was one breach of the regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 November 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 29 November 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.