We carried out a review of the data available to us about House of Care Services Ltd 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 House of Care Services Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
own homes. Support is provided to older people, people living with dementia, people with learning disabilities, people with physical disabilities and people with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care to 17 people. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe with their care workers and safeguarding procedures protected people from harm. Risk management had improved since our last inspection and detailed risk management plans supported care workers to provide consistent, safe care to people. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood their responsibility to report any concerns about people to their managers. Lessons had been learnt when things had gone wrong.
Care workers followed good infection control practice and understood their responsibilities in relation to preventing and controlling infections to keep people safe.
Staff were recruited safely. People’s needs had been assessed before they started to receive a service. People confirmed their care calls had been provided at the correct times for the agreed duration.
People received their medicines when they needed them from trained and competent care workers. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health.
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.
People and their relatives had confidence in the ability of their care workers to deliver safe and effective care. Care workers spoke positively about their training and felt supported and appreciated by their managers.
Effective governance systems monitored the quality and safety of the service provided. People spoke positively about the leadership of the service and told us they would recommend the service to others. People felt listened to and were encouraged to share feedback about the service they received, which had been used to support service improvement.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection (and update)
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 21 March 2019) and there were two breaches of regulations. The provider completed an action plan after that inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations 11 (Need for Consent) and 17 (Good Governance).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. We undertook this focused inspection to check the provider had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions of Safe, Effective and Well-led. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for House of Care Services ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
House of Care Services Ltd is a domiciliary care provider supporting people in their own homes. Not everyone using House of Care Services 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 the inspection the service supporting 23 people, 22 of whom were supported with personal care
People’s experience of using this service:
People had signed consent forms to indicate they were happy for care to be provided and delivered. They had also signed copies of care plans and other documents. In some instances, whilst people had capacity to agree to care, relatives had signed consent forms and other documents without the legal authority to do so, meaning appropriate consent had not been obtained. Where people did not have capacity to agree and consent to care then the service had undertaken reviews of their capacity and best interest decisions made. Whilst these were documented they were not always specific and fully in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
Prior to the delivery of care people’s needs had been assessed and care plans reflected these assessed needs. Risk assessments had been undertaken with regard to the environment and also care, such as risks associated with moving and handling and supporting people with medication. Risk assessments were not always regularly reviewed and updated or did not always reflect current care practice.
People told us they received good care and felt safe when being supported by care workers. Care was usually provided by a small, familiar group of care staff. People said care staff arrived on time and stayed and supported them for the full allocated period. If staff were delayed the service advised people of the delay. People told us no appointments had been missed.
People’s preferences, wishes and choices were recorded and respected. They said staff supported them in a way that maintained their dignity. People were also encouraged to maintain their independence and to carry out as many tasks for themselves as they could.
People considered staff to have the correct skills to support them. Staff had received a range of training and had access to regular supervisions and appraisals.
The registered manager undertook a range of checks and audits on care documents and spot checks were undertaken to ensure staff continued to deliver appropriate and good quality care.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated as good.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating. The service was rated good at the last inspection but is now rated as requires improvement.
Improvement action we have told the provider to take: Please see the ‘action we have told the provider to take’ section towards the end of the report.
Follow up: We will request an action plan from the provider detailing how they will address the breaches. Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with schedule for those services rated as Requires Improvement.
This inspection was announced and took place on 30 September 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intention to undertake the inspection. This was because the service provides domiciliary care to people in their own homes and we needed to make sure someone would be available at the office.
House of Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 15 people received care and support services.
There was a registered manager in place who is also the registered provider. 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 we spoke with told us that they felt safe when staff entered their home and that staff knew how to support them. Staff were able to tell us of the needs of the people they provided care for and their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff, who had a good understanding of protecting people from the risk of abuse and harm and their responsibilities to report suspected abuse. Medicines were administered by staff that had received training to do this. The provider had procedures in place to check that people received their medicines as prescribed to effectively and safely meet their health needs.
People told us they received reliable care from a regular team of trained staff who understood their likes, dislikes and preferences for care and support and that they were kept informed of any changes.
Staff supported people to make their own choices and decision’s about their care and support. We found people were actively involved in how their care was planned and their needs met. Staff supported people to access health care services such as their GP.
People spoke positively about both support they received and the staff that provided it. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect and staff demonstrated their understanding of people’s right to refuse care.
The provider encouraged people to share their opinions about the quality of the service through monthly telephone conversations and an annual satisfaction questionnaire.
The provider monitored the quality of care provided and supported staff. They encouraged an open office where staff could ‘pop in at any time’ and staff confirmed that they could ‘always rely on support from the office’.
People who used the service were complimentary about the care and support that they received. One person told us: "I'm very grateful for them'. Another person said: "The (staff) are lovely, they are lovely to talk with'.
There were suitable arrangements to ensure that people who used the service were safeguarded against the risk of abuse
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.
The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.