You are here

Angel Human Resources Limited (London Bridge) Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Angel Human Resources Limited (London Bridge). We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 24 September 2019

About the service

Angel Human Resources Limited (London Bridge) is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to 75 people at the time of the inspection.

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

Some people did not have enough information recorded on their medicines care plans despite care workers prompting them to take their medicines. Accident and incident records did not contain full details about whether risks had been mitigated and lessons learned as a result of accidents. The provider assessed and mitigated known risks involved in people’s care. The provider had clear processes to safeguard people from abuse. There were a suitable number of appropriately vetted staff to work at the service. Staff had a good understanding about how to provide hygienically safe care.

People’s care plans did not always contain enough information about their healthcare needs. The provider told us and care workers confirmed they received regular training and supervisions, however, there was no documentary evidence to support this. 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. However, we found that where people could not sign their care plans due to being physically unable to do so, there was no written explanation on the care record to confirm this. People’s care was given in line with current standards as the provider worked well with other professionals to provide timely care. People were supported appropriately with their nutritional needs.

People gave good feedback about their care workers and they demonstrated they knew people well. People’s care records contained very little information about their religious or cultural needs, but care workers had a good level of knowledge about this. Care workers respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported people to be as independent as they wanted.

At the time of our inspection, the provider was not supporting anyone with their end of life care needs. However, the provider did not keep a record of people’s needs in the event that someone did need this support. People’s care record contained limited information about the support they needed to maintain their interests, but care workers had a good understanding about people’s needs. People were given choices in relation to their care and their preferences were followed. People were supported with their communication needs. The provider had a clear complaints policy and procedure in place.

Care workers gave good feedback about the registered manager who had a good understanding of her duty responsibilities to be open and honest when things went wrong. The provider worked well with other professionals but could not demonstrate clear auditing processes of the quality of the service. As a result, the issues we found had not been identified or addressed by the provider.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection– The last rating for this service was good (published 8 December 2016).

Why we inspected- This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection. We have identified breaches of regulations in relation to medicines management, staffing and good governance at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safet

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 24 September 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 24 September 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 September 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 September 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 24 September 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.