• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: We Love Care

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

22-24, King Street, Maidenhead, SL6 1EF (01628) 306000

Provided and run by:
We Love Care Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile
Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 6 October 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Our inspection site visit took place on 1 August 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit so that the management team would be available.

Our inspection was completed by two adult social care inspectors and an Expert-by-Experience. An Expert-by-Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Our inspectors completed the office visit. Our Expert-by-Experience completed telephone calls to people and relatives. We also wrote to the service’s staff to seek their feedback.

Our inspection was informed by evidence we already held about the service. We also checked for feedback we received from members of the public, local authorities and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). We checked records held by Companies House and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

We did not ask the service to complete a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We did ask the service for a list of health and social care contacts prior to our inspection, and this was returned by the due date.

We spoke with four people who used the service and five relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager and the senior administrator. We received written feedback from four other staff. We reviewed six people’s care records, two personnel files, medicines administration records and other records about the management of the service.

After our inspection, we asked the registered manager to send us further documents and we received and reviewed this information. This evidence was included as part of our inspection.

Overall inspection


Updated 6 October 2018

Our inspection took place on 1 August 2018 and was announced.

This was our first inspection of the service since the provider’s registration.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger and older people, people with dementia and those with physical disabilities.

At the time of our inspection, 11 people used the service and there were seven staff.

The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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 the time of our inspection, there was a manager registered with us.

There were policies and systems in place to safeguard people, assess risks and manage them, and to manage people's medicines safely. We made a recommendation about staff knowledge of the safeguarding legislation and best practice of medicines management in the community. There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs. People provided feedback which indicated care calls were on time. The provider continuously monitored the status of all care calls, both from the office base and remotely. In addition, the office would call people and relatives if care workers were behind schedule. The service had implemented an effective electronic records system, which monitored any missed or late calls.

People's needs were met including support with eating and drinking and accessing healthcare. The provider ensured there were systems in place to ensure staff had the right training, qualifications, support and supervision to do their job.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible and remain living in their own homes.

People’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. The service was very caring. There was complimentary feedback from people who used the service and their relatives. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews. People’s privacy and dignity was respected when care was provided to them.

Care plans were detailed and contained very person-centred information. This explained how staff could support people in the right way. We saw there was complaints system in place which included the ability for people to contact any staff member or the management team. We made a recommendation about the communicating with people effectively in accordance with the Accessible Information Standard.

People, staff and others had very positive opinions about the management and leadership of the service. Staff told us they liked working at the service which indicated there was a good workplace culture. Audits and checks were used to monitor the quality of care. We made a recommendation about the use of equality, diversity and human rights throughout the service’s operations. There were good connections between the service and relevant health and social care agencies.