You are here

Springvilla Care Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 March 2019

Our inspection of Springvilla Care Limited took place on 13 December 2018. This is a new service that was registered with The Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2017. This was their first comprehensive inspection.

Springvilla Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency that provides a range of support to adults living in their own homes. The service is based in the London Borough of Brent. At the time of our inspection the service provided care and support to seven people.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

People who used the service spoke positively about the care that was provided to them. Staff members also spoke positively about the people they supported.

People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential areas of concern and reduce risk to people. People had personalised risk assessments which included guidance on how to minimise and manage any potential risk. Staff members had received safeguarding adults training and demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities in reporting any suspicions or concerns.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people who required support to take prescribed medicines were safe. Staff members had received training in safe administration of medicines.

Staff recruitment processes were in place to ensure that workers employed by the service were suitable for the work they were undertaking. The provider had checked staff references and criminal records prior to their appointment.

The service’s staffing rotas met the current support needs of people. There was a system for ensuring that care calls were managed and monitored. Staff and people who used the service had access to management support outside of office hours.

Staff members received the support they required to carry out their roles effectively. Staff training met national standards for staff working in social care organisations. Staff members received regular supervision sessions with a manager.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Information about people’s capacity to make decisions was included in their care plans. Staff members had received training on the MCA. People were asked for their consent to any care or support that was provided.

People who used the service and staff members spoke positively about its management. They knew what to do if they had a concern or complaint about their care.

A range of processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service, such as audits and spot checks of care practice. Quality assurance and good practice issues were discussed with staff at regular team meetings.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 March 2019

The service was safe. People had personalised risk assessments which included guidance for staff on how to manage and minimise risk

Staff members had received training in safeguarding and demonstrated that they understood what to do if they suspected that a person was at risk of harm or abuse.

Medicines records were in good order and regularly audited. Staff members had received medicines training.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 March 2019

The service was effective. Staff members had received training and regular supervision from a manager.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Information about capacity to make decisions had been recorded and people had been asked for their consent to the care that was being provided.

The service liaised with other health and social care professionals to meet people�s needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 March 2019

The service was caring. People spoke positively about the staff members who supported them.

Staff members demonstrated that they understood people�s care needs. They spoke positively about their approaches to dignity and privacy.

The service made efforts to match staff to people where they had similar religious or cultural needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 March 2019

The service was responsive. People had personalised care plans which included guidance for staff on how people preferred their needs to be met.

Staff members recorded the care that they provided to people.

The service had a complaints procedure and people told us that they knew what to do if they had a complaint or concern.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 March 2019

The service was well-led. People and staff members spoke positively about its management.

Regular quality assurance monitoring took place. Actions had been taken to improve the service as a result of this monitoring.

A range of policies and procedures were in place that reflected current legal requirements and good practice.