Archived: Sisterly Care Ltd

Sisterly Care Ltd is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to older adults living with families or in their own homes in the community. At the time of our inspection they were supporting 34 people.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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’s personal information was not always held securely. The provider did not have a system that protected the information being shared with staff. The provider took immediate action and implemented a system in response to our feedback. We will not be able to confirm if sufficient action has been taken until we next inspect the agency.

People were cared for safely and staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from abuse or harm. One person said, “I feel safe with them (staff), I look forward to them coming.” Risk assessments were in place which ensured that staff knew what to do to mitigate the risks identified.

People received their medicines safely and there were effective practices in place to protect people from infection. One person said, “Staff do my medication, it is different every day. Even the younger ones have got their heads round it. I am confident in them.”

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

Staff received the support they required and had access to training. One relative said, “They are a better agency than I have used before. The staff are always competent and always ask if anything else needs to be done, before leaving.”

Staff were kind and caring and passionate about the care they provided. People and their families consistently told us how well looked after they were, and staff were respectful. One person said, “They are very kind, they go over and above.” People's dignity and privacy was maintained, and people felt in control of their lives.

People had individualised care plans which ensured they received person-centred care. Plans considered people's preferences, likes and dislikes and their cultural and religious backgrounds. People knew who to speak to raise concerns and were confident they would be listened to.

The provider was open and honest and strived to look at ways to improve the service. One relative said, “[Registered manager] is very good and asks how the care is going. It is comforting to know that there is ongoing monitoring.” Staff felt well supported and people were confident in the service they received. Staff liaised with other health professionals and looked at ways to improve people's life experiences.

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 7 December 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sisterly Care Limited 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 re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Sisterly Care Limited is registered to provide personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection, the service was providing support to 71 people.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Care plans did not always contain person-centred information. They failed to demonstrate the specific needs, preferences and wishes of each individual person and did not always provide staff with guidance about how to fully meet people's needs. This was an area requiring improvement.

People spoke highly of the service. They told us that they enjoyed good relationships with the staff who visited them and that they would recommend the service. When we visited people in their homes, we observed that they enjoyed warm and friendly relationships with staff.

People told us they felt safe and were protected from harm. Staff were trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what action to take. People's risks were identified, assessed and managed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to support people safely and staff were available 24 hours a day. A robust recruitment system was in place to ensure new staff had all the necessary checks completed before they were allowed to commence employment. Medicines were managed safely by trained staff.

Staff received all essential training to support people's needs effectively. New staff completed the Care Certificate, a universally recognised qualification. Staff were encouraged to pursue additional qualifications by the provider. Staff had at least three supervision meetings a year and attended team meetings.

The registered manager also carried out regular spot checks to monitor staff performance, check on time keeping and to offer support.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and their responsibilities under this legislation.

People had sufficient to eat and drink and had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them extremely well. People spoke highly of the staff who looked after them and said they were treated with dignity and respect. People were involved in all aspects of their care and were supported to express their views.

Complaints were investigated and managed appropriately in line with the provider's policy.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and used feedback from people and staff to identify improvements and act on them.

There was a culture of openness and transparency at the service. Staff were positive about the management and leadership of the service. The service had quality assurance systems in place, which were used to good effect and to continuously improve on the quality of the care provided.

People also felt that staff were well trained to understand their needs. We also spoke with four care workers. They expressed the view that they were supported by management to undertake their roles and responsibilities.

Everyone that we spoke with said that they felt confident that issues would be resolved if raised with management of the agency.

The evidence we gained during this inspection supported the comments made by people and their relatives.