You are here

Affection Care Services Ltd (Bucks) Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 13 December 2019

About the service

Affection Care Services Ltd (Bucks) is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their own homes. The service was registered with the commission in October 2018, this is its first inspection. At the time of the inspection 18 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

This service was registered with us on 22 October 2018 and this is the first inspection. People told us they felt safe with the care the service provided.

We found the recording of the administration of medicines did not always reflect medicines had been administered in a safe way. There were no risk assessments in place for medicines and there were no “as required” (PRN) protocols in place to advise staff on when to give some medicines. The provider had a plan in place to increase the training for staff in this area, but this had not taken place at the time of our visit.

Care plans were in place for people, however some risks assessments were not in place. For example risk assessments related to people's health needs.

Staff understood how to protect people from abuse, however, the senior staff required further training in responding to allegations of abuse. This training was being sourced at the time of our visit. The information provided to staff about how to report safeguarding was not up to date or accurate. The registered manager told us they would amend this immediately.

We found sufficient checks had been carried out to minimise the risk of employing unsafe staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people and care for them safely. Staff received training and support to enable them to carry out their role.

People described staff as “Super”, “Friendly and competent”. “Very helpful” and “Very Caring”. They felt comfortable raising concerns and providing feedback to the provider. People were supported with eating and drinking if this was an identified need. Where people’s health needs required external professional interventions, people were supported to receive this, and any recommendations were followed through by staff. They worked with external agencies to ensure care was consistent, appropriate, and safe.

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.

The service aimed to provide person centred care, records reflected how people’s individual needs had been assessed and a care plan was then devised to meet their needs. Staff were seen to go beyond expectations when they supported a person to enjoy an outing into the community. Where possible staff spent time with people discussing topics of interest.

The service was not providing end of life care but planned to do so in the future once training for staff had been undertaken. The registered manager worked hard to establish the service and was open and receptive to feedback and new ideas. They were clear of their aim to provide the best care they could to people.

People spoke positively about the management. They felt there was an open and honest culture and when issues arose these were responded to quickly and effectively. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities under the duty of candour. They had quality assurance audits in place, but these needed to be developed to give a more detailed overview of the service, including medicines, risk assessments and records. The registered manager had been planning to address some of these areas before our visit.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Why we inspected

We carried out this inspection as part of our inspection programme.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we rece

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 13 December 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 13 December 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 13 December 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 13 December 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 13 December 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.