Archived: Angel Homecaring

When we inspected Angel Homecaring in September 2013 we found that not all records were up to date. We saw that the records held at the office did not always match the records in the community. For example one person's care had increased to four visits a day but the care plan held at the office had not changed to show the extra three visits. At this inspection we saw much more detailed care records that were personalised and explained the care and support to be delivered.

At the previous inspection we found that some information was absent in staff recruitment files. At this inspection we found that the staff files we looked at were in order.

As a result of the inspection findings the provider told us they had reviewed company processes. They restructured their management team to ensure that all outcomes were met to the highest standard in the future. They sent us an action plan to demonstrate how they would become compliant.

During the inspection we spoke with provider/manager, the deputy manager, a trainer and a compliance lead. On the telephone we spoke with four care staff, eight people who used the service and one social worker.

We looked at how people gave consent and how their care and welfare needs were recorded. We reviewed how the agency used and managed equipment in people's homes and how the staff were trained to use it. One carer told us: 'We have to check all the equipment prior to using it, to make sure it's safe and in good working order'.

People we spoke with told us the staff were respectful of being in their home. One person told us: 'I get on very well with the staff, they really are angels'.

We spoke with staff and looked at records of how they were supervised in their role. We inspected the agency's record keeping to establish how people were protected from inappropriate care. We found that not all records were up to date.

We spoke with five people who used the service. One person told us, 'They really are angels. They are reliable and friendly. I can't fault them'.

One relative we spoke with told us, 'I have been totally satisfied with the care. The staff give professional care, they are respectful of our home and arrive punctual to deliver the care'.

We visited the office and looked at care records, recruitment and training records and the quality assurance surveys.

We met and spoke with six staff on the telephone. The staff told us they were well supported in the community and received appropriate training. One staff member told us the new office in Stafford was much better as the staff could call in more easily.