You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 March 2018

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults, younger adults with disabilities and children. Not everyone using Adriel Care Ltd receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection there were three people receiving ‘personal care’.

This announced inspection took place on 10, 12 and 15 January 2018. We gave the service two days’ notice of the inspection site visit. We gave the service notice to ensure the manager would be available and that people could be supported to make decisions about taking part in the inspection. We received further information form the service until 12 February 2018.

There was a registered manager for the service. 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.

At our last inspection in January 2017 we identified a breach of regulation. This breach was in respect of the robustness of recruitment systems and processes. At this inspection we checked to see if the provider had made the improvements necessary to meet the requirements of the regulation. We found that staff were recruited in a way that included appropriate checks on their employment history and their suitability to work with people who may be vulnerable.

At our last inspection we also made a number of recommendations. We recommended the provider updated their complaints process. We recommended that the provider reviewed its systems for assessing and monitoring the service. We found these recommendations had been followed. There were systems in place to ensure that the quality and safety of care people received was monitored and improved. People and staff contributed to these processes both formally and informally. People felt able to raise concerns and there was information about which agencies could handle these concerns available.

We also made a recommendation that the provider evaluated how records keeping could become more accurate, contemporaneous and more readily available. We found this recommendation had been followed. However we also identified that reporting could be more person centred and we made a recommendation about this.

Staff understood how people consented to the care they provided and encouraged people to make decisions about their lives. Care plans did not however reflect that care was being delivered within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We highlighted this and the registered manager addressed it immediately. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were happy with their care. They felt supported to maintain their independence and were confident in the skills of the staff team. They told us staff were kind.

Staff understood people’s care needs and spoke with confidence about the support people needed to meet these needs. They told us they felt supported in their roles and had taken training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills. There was a plan in place to ensure staff received refresher training as deemed necessary by the provider.

People felt safe. They were protected from harm because staff understood the risks people faced and how to reduce these risks. Measures to reduce risk reflected the person’s preferences. Staff also knew how to identify and respond to abuse.

People told us they received the care and support they needed. They also told us they were supported to maintain their health by staff including support to access he

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 March 2018

The service was safe. People felt safe and they received their visits at an appropriate time to meet their needs. People were supported by staff who understood the risks they faced and spoke competently about how they reduced these risks. People told us they received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 20 March 2018

The service was mostly effective. People who were able to consent to their care had done so and told us they directed the care they received. Staff provided care in people’s best interests when they could not consent: however these decisions had not been made by staff from the service or recorded appropriately. This was addressed by the registered manager during our inspection.

People’s needs had been assessed and they were cared for by staff who understood these needs. People had the help they needed with food and drink and saw a range of health professionals when they needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 March 2018

The service was caring. People told us they received kind care. Staff described how they treated people with dignity and respect. People and their relatives were listened to and felt involved in making decisions about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 March 2018

The service was responsive. People told us they were supported to live their life the way they chose to. People, and relatives, were confident they were listened to and knew how to complain if they felt it necessary.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 March 2018

The service was well led. People, relatives and staff had confidence in the management. There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality including seeking the views of people and relatives. Staff were committed to the ethos of the service and were able to share their views and contribute to developments. The registered manager and senior team were responsive and addressed all concerns identified during our inspection.