You are here

AM2PM Quality Care Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 23 May and 5 June 2018.

AM2PM Quality Care is a home care agency. The service provides personal care and support to both younger and older adults living in their own homes in and around South London and Surrey. At the time of our inspection seven people with a range of health and personal care needs were using the service including, people living with dementia and those with physical disabilities. Some people receive 24-hour home care and support from this agency and have live-in care workers.

All seven people currently using this agency received an activity regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, which includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

The service had a registered manager in post who was also the company’s co-director. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

This provider was newly registered with the CQC in January 2018. This comprehensive inspection is the first time this new home care agency will have been inspected and rated by us. We have rated them ‘Good’ overall and for the four key questions, ‘Is the service safe, effective, caring and responsive?’

However, we rated them ‘Requires Improvement’ for the one key question, ‘Is the service well-led?’ This was because the provider did not always maintain sufficiently detailed and easily accessible records in relation to people using the service, staff and the overall management of the service. During our inspection we discussed this record keeping issue with the registered manager who agreed to review the way the service maintained and stored records they are required to keep. Progress made by the provider to improve their record keeping and filing practices will be assessed at their next inspection.

In addition, although we saw risk assessments had been carried out by the registered manager and were available in people’s care plans; we found the associated risk management plans for staff to follow were not always sufficiently detailed to ensure they had access to all the information they needed to mitigate these identified risks. This issue was also discussed with the registered manager during our inspection. They agreed to review all the risk management plans that were in place to ensure people were suitably protected from any hazards they might face. Progress made by the provider to achieve this stated aim will also be assessed at their next inspection.

These negative comments described above notwithstanding people using the service and their relatives told us they were extremely happy with the standard of home care and support they received from this new agency.

This inspection was partially prompted because we received information from an anonymous source concerned the home care staff working for this provider might not be ‘suitable’ or ‘competent’ to perform this role because they had not been sufficiently vetted or trained by the provider. During this inspection we found the provider’s staff recruitment procedures and training programme were sufficiently robust to mitigate the risk of people being cared for at home by unsuitable and incompetent staff.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff who visited them at home. There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse. People and their relatives did not have any concerns about staff turning up late or missing scheduled visits. Staffing le

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was safe.

However, although we saw risk assessments had been carried out and were available in people�s care plans; we found the associated risk management plans were not always sufficiently detailed to ensure staff had access to all the information they needed to mitigate these identified risks. This issue was discussed with the registered manager who agreed to review all the risk management plans that were in place to ensure people were suitably protected from any hazards they might face.

Staff recruitment procedures were designed to prevent people from being cared for by unsuitable staff. There were enough competent staff available who could be matched with people using the service to ensure their needs were met.

There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse.

Where the service was responsible for supporting people to manage their medicines, staff ensured they received their prescribed medicines at times they needed them.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and support to ensure they had the knowledge and skills needed to perform their roles effectively.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the MCA.

Where staff were responsible for this they supported people to eat and drink sufficient amounts. People were supported to stay healthy and well. If staff had any concerns about a person�s health appropriate advice and support was sought.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was caring.

People using the service said staff were kind, caring and respectful.

Staff were thoughtful and considerate when delivering care to people. They ensured people�s right to privacy and to be treated with dignity was maintained, particularly when receiving personal care.

People were supported to do as much as they could and wanted to do for themselves.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans reflected how people using the service wanted their personal care needs met. These were reviewed regularly by the registered manager.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were dissatisfied with the service they received. The provider had arrangements in place to deal with people's concerns and complaints in an appropriate way.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 29 June 2018

Some aspects of the service were not well-led.

Records kept by the service had not always been maintained in such a way as to ensure they were sufficiently detailed and easily accessible. We discussed this issue with the registered manager who agreed to review the way they maintained and organised records they are required to keep.

The provider routinely gathered feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. This feedback alongside the provider�s own audits and quality checks was used to continually assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service they provided.