You are here

Loyal Care Consortium Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 January 2019

This inspection took place on 3 December 2018 and was announced.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults living in their own homes with physical, mental health or learning disability needs.

The service registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 January 2018. This is the first inspection of the service. At the time of the inspection the service had two people using the service who received support with personal care.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

Relatives told us they were happy with the care provided and staff were kind to their family members. Staff understood their role in safeguarding adults and were able to tell us what they would do if they had any safeguarding concerns.

There were care records in place but they did not contain enough detail on people’s needs. Risk assessments were not always in place to guide staff and minimise harm for all identified risks.

Relatives told us their family members were cared for by regular staff who understood their needs. Staff were on time or the office notified family members if staff were running late. Staff told us that travel times were sufficient, so they were not rushed.

At the time of the inspection family members supported people with their medicines so staff did not provide medicines support. Staff had been trained in giving medicines. The service worked with healthcare services to deliver effective care and support to people.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager and provider carried out audits to check the quality of the care provided. The service learnt lessons and made improvements when things went wrong.

There was a complaints process in place and relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint, and that the registered manager would respond to issues they raised.

Staff recruitment was safe and staff were supported to meet people’s needs through a combination of induction, supervision, training and guidance from family members.

Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection. Supplies were delivered to people’s houses.

We have made a recommendation to the service to review records to record mental capacity assessments in more detail.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 17 January 2019

The service was not always safe. Risk assessments were not always in place to guide staff and minimise harm for all identified risks.

Safe recruitment processes were in place.

Adequate infection control processes were in place.

The service learned from incidents to minimise reoccurrence.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 January 2019

The service was effective. Staff were supported to provide good care through comprehensive induction, training and supervision. Relatives also provided guidance to care staff in meeting the needs of their family members.

The service worked with health professionals to support people with their health needs.

Staff understood the need to gain consent before providing care.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 January 2019

The service was caring. Relatives told us staff were kind to their family member and treated them with dignity and respect.

Care records noted people�s religious and cultural needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 January 2019

The service was responsive. Care records reflected people�s current needs. As people�s needs were very complex they required greater detail to be recorded, although relatives confirmed staff understood how to meet people�s needs.

There was a complaints process in place and relatives were confident issues raised would be dealt with by the registered manager.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 January 2019

The service was well-led. The management team had introduced audits to monitor quality and were in the process of extending the audit processes as the service grew.

Relatives and staff told us the registered manager was available and involved in the day to day running of the service.