We carried out a review of the data available to us about True Quality Services - West London on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about True Quality Services - West London, you can give feedback on this service.
True Quality Service – West London is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing care to three people.
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
People told us they felt safe. Where there were risks to people’s safety and wellbeing, these had been assessed and the provider had done all that was reasonably practicable to lessen those risks. People who used the service did not require support with their medicines. However, the provider had a medicines policy and procedure in place and staff received training in these.
People's care and risk management plans set out the care tasks they required help with and these contained personalised information about people and their preferences for how they liked to be supported.
There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and recognise when improvements were required. The provider was transparent and there was clear communication within the team, so they learnt from mistakes and made improvements when things went wrong.
We received positive feedback from people about using the service. People said staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect.
There was enough staff to support people and staff usually arrived on time at people’s homes. The provider’s monitoring system helped ensure people received all their visits as planned. Staff received an induction, training and supervision and felt supported in their roles.
The provider sought feedback from people, relatives and staff and used this to develop the service. People and staff were confident they could raise any concerns they had with the registered manager and felt they would be listened to.
The registered manager and senior staff were responsive to and worked in partnership with other agencies to meet people’s needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives 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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
When we last inspected the service on 16 January 2019 (published 21 March 2019), they were providing personal care to only one person. This meant we were unable to judge in detail whether the agency was meeting the regulations and providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led care to people. Consequently, we could not rate the quality of the service as we had insufficient evidence on which to do so.
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about the service from a member of the public. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led sections of this full report.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The agency had provided care to three people. However, at the time of our inspection they were providing the regulated activity of personal care to only one person. This means that we were unable to judge in detail whether this agency was meeting the regulations and providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led care to people. Consequently, we could not rate the quality of the service as we had insufficient evidence on which to do so. The provider was able to show us their policies and procedures and some care documents but we require a wider range of information before we can rate this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
At the time of our visit the agency was at the early stages of their development. In the Providers Information Return (PIR) document the registered manager informed us that the agency was committed to providing person centred care to all people they would support. They aimed to promote a culture which encouraged staff to provide high quality care across the service.
The agency helped to protect people from harm. There were appropriate safeguarding procedures in place. These included safeguarding training for staff and discussions about safeguarding in staff supervision and team meetings.
People received support with medicines when needed. We noted that Medicines Administration Records (MAR) did not have details of medicines people were receiving. This information had been recorded in care plans. The quality assurance officer said this would be addressed.
We saw that the person receiving the service had had their needs assessed before the agency started supporting them. There was an individual care plan that reflected their wishes, preferences, and considered their cultural, religious or social requirements. Information about people’s communication preferences had been recorded in their files. The agency had taken these into consideration when matching people using the service and staff who supported them. We noted that care plans we saw would benefit from more detailed information on how this support should be provided. The Quality Assurance Officer assured us this would be looked into.
Risk to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed and recorded in their files. Staff received training in infection control and they were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) to avoid the spread of inspection. There was an accident and incident policy to guide staff on how to report and record any accidents or incidents. Appropriate recruitment procedure helped to protect people from unsuitable staff.
Staff received support to help them to care for people effectively. This included induction to the service and a care worker’s role and mandatory training. Staff received regular supervision, appraisal of their skills and were invited to participate in staff meetings.
The agency assisted staff to promote inclusion, did not condone discrimination of any form and to provide better care to people. Staff received training in the following areas. Person centred care, dementia awareness, communication and dignity and respect. The agency had an equality and diversity policy which highlight that all individuals accessing the agency would be equally accepted and respected.
The agency had provided some support with food and fluid. This consisted of warming up and serving pre-prepared food. People’s dietary needs and preferences were recorded in their files.
The agency sought consent before providing care to people.
People were encouraged to give feedback about the service provided. This could be done via the provider’s complaint policy as well as through direct contact with staff of the management team. The first customer satisfaction survey had been scheduled for April 2019.
The agency carried out regular audits to ensure appropriate checks had been done and that care was provided as required.
The agency was planning to take on more care and they were in the process liaising with the local authority to offer their service to people in the area of North – West of London.
Rating at last inspection: This was the first inspection of this service.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on CQC’s scheduling process. .
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the agency and we will revisit it in the future to provide a rating.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk