We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ezer Leyoldos Domiciliary Care Agency on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ezer Leyoldos Domiciliary Care Agency, you can give feedback on this service.
Ezer Leyolodos Domiciliary Care Agency is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection they were facilitating support to one person who lived in a bespoke setting in their community. 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.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Right Support: The service was set up to maximise the choice and independence of people receiving support. The model of care was truly unique and had been developed to ensure the person was able to maintain and develop their community relationships. 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.
Right Care: People received culturally appropriate care that promoted their religious and cultural identity. People had been involved in developing their care plans and were enthusiastic about the range of activities they were supported to be involved with. Staff spoke about people with kindness and compassion. Staff were proud of people’s achievements and spoke about them in a way that promoted people’s sense of achievement and personhood. Care was designed to promote people’s independence and community wellbeing
Right Culture: Staff demonstrated clear values which promoted the rights and achievements of people using the service. There was an open culture which focussed on supporting people to achieve their desired outcomes. People told us they were supported to “have a blast” within a service that supported them to manage risks in a safe way.
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 requires improvement (published 27 November 2019)
At our last inspection we recommended that the provider make improvements to their safeguarding and whistleblowing processes. We also made a recommendation about improving their recruitment processes. At this inspection we found both our recommendations had been followed.
Since our last inspection the provider had made changes to their statement of purpose. When we last inspected they worked only with children. Since then they have stopped this work and now only work with adults.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Ezer Leyoldos is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people under the age 18. The service user group included people with a learning disability and/ or an autistic spectrum disorder. 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. At the time of the inspection three people were using the service from the same family.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were not always supported by staff who had received appropriate training for their role. We identified a member staff had not completed any training with the service since they had joined in July 2019. We were advised staff completed an induction but, the details of the induction were not recorded.
We have made a recommendation about staff obtaining training relevant to their role.
Some staff were not clear on their safeguarding responsibilities and who they should report their concerns to outside of the service. Other staff were aware of the processes to follow and how to blow the whistle if they observed poor practice.
We have made a recommendation about staff safeguarding and whistleblowing responsibilities.
People were supported by staff who had been overall recruited in a safe way. However, we found gaps in employment were not always explored.
We have made a recommendation about recruitment practices at the service.
People had their risk of infection reduced as staff followed good hygiene practices and used appropriate protective equipment to stop the risk of cross infection.
Staff knew what to do in the event of an accident or incident and the manager of the service had systems in place to investigate and learn from incidents if they occurred in the future.
Relatives told us staff were good at their jobs and provided support that was good for their family members.
People had their needs assessed by the service and this was done jointly with people’s relatives due to people’s young age. People were supported by staff to eat and drink sufficient amounts in a safe way.
People’s care plans were personalised, and staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. Relatives told us care was regularly reviewed and they observed the care was meeting their family members’ needs.
Relatives were complimentary of staff and their kind and caring nature. Relatives were also pleased the service had worked hard to find a female member of staff who was from the same cultural background and could speak the same language as the person’s mother.
The service had appointed a new manager who had only been in post for a short time, however, they had been working as an assistant manager within the service for 15 months. The manager was aware of changes needed to improve the quality of the service in terms of staff training and records and had taken steps to do this. Relatives were happy with the level of communication from the management at the service and they were easily accessible. Records showed relatives gave positive feedback on the service.
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 applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.
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 28 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
The service provides care and support to people living in their own homes. There were six people using the service when we visited. The service provides care to people both over and under the age of 18.
There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
Risk assessments and care plans contained detailed information for care staff. All records were reviewed within six months or sooner if people’s needs changed.
Care staff did not assist people with their medicines. Relatives assisted people to take their medicines.
Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. Staff had received safeguarding adults and children training and were able to explain the possible signs of abuse as well as the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns.
Staff demonstrated a good level of knowledge about their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s life histories and current circumstances and supported people to meet their individual needs in a caring way. Care records contained a good level of detail about people’s needs and preferences.
Recruitment procedures ensured that only staff who were suitable, worked within the service. There was an induction programme for new staff, which prepared them for their role.
Care workers were provided with adequate training to help them carry out their duties. Care workers received regular supervision and appraisals of their performance. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs and visits were appropriately arranged to ensure people’s needs were met.
Care workers did not provide assistance with people’s meals as this did not form part of the care packages they were commissioned to provide. However, people’s care plans contained sufficient information for staff about how to meet people’s needs in relation to their health and nutrition. When questioned, care workers were knowledgeable about people’s nutritional needs despite not having responsibility for providing this service to people.
The service was proactive in encouraging people to socialise and maintain their independence. Care records contained a good level of detail about people’s hobbies and interests and staff encouraged them to participate in these and try new activities they thought they would enjoy.
People using the service and staff gave positive feedback about the registered manager and told us they provided feedback about the service. They knew how to make complaints and told us they felt listened to and there was a complaints policy and procedure in place.
The organisation did not have consistently adequate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager reviewed various areas of the business on a regular basis. Information was reported to the CQC as required. However, spot checks were not conducted for all staff to check their performance and the outcomes of these checks were not always recorded.
The inspection took place on 15, 19 and 27 October 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service for children and adults; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
Ezer Leyoldos provides personal care to children and adults in their own homes. The agency specialises in supporting Orthodox Jewish families. At the time of this inspection five people were receiving a service.
There was a registered manager at the service; however she was not managing the service at the time of our inspection. Another manager had taken over the day to day running of the service but the provider had not begun the process of registering this manager with the Care Quality Commission. 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.
People were not always protected from risks to their health and wellbeing because risks to people who used the service were not appropriately assessed and managed to protect them from avoidable harm.
The practice of prompting people to take their medicines was not always managed safely because the type of medicine and the time it was prompted was not recorded.
There were enough staff at the service but the provider could not be assured that they had received all training necessary for them to carry out their duties. In addition, newly appointed staff were not given time to shadow more experienced staff to ensure they were clear about how to meet people’s individual needs.
The service was not organised in a way that always promoted safe care through effective quality monitoring. Contrary to the provider’s policy, the provider had not implemented a system to audit different aspects of the service. Care records were not personalised and did not contain enough information to ensure staff knew the appropriate care to provide, for example when helping people to eat and drink.
People were protected from the risk of potential abuse. Relatives told us that the service was safe and a thorough recruitment system meant people were supported by staff who were suitable for work in the caring profession.
People’s health needs were generally met by their relatives and there was evidence that the provider worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals when required.
The provider followed the latest guidance and legal developments about obtaining consent to care. Staff used a range of communication methods to support people to express their views about their care.
Staff developed caring relationships with people using the service and relative’s opinions of the care staff were overwhelmingly positive. People were supported to maintain their hobbies and interests. Care staff respected people’s diversity and privacy and provided care that was based on individuals’ preferences.
The provider gave opportunities for people to feedback about the service and staff and relatives felt that the culture at the service was open and approachable.
We made one recommendation in relation to the prompting of medicines. We found three breaches of the Regulations around safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
At this inspection we found that the service had developed a risk assessment policy and procedure, and had carried out risk assessments for the five people using the service. Through looking at the risk assessments and speaking with a relative of a person using the service, we saw that this work had been carried out through involving people and their representatives.
People told us they were consulted about how their care was provided. The care records contained a care plan and a home environment risk assessment. Although a risk assessment for people using the service had been carried out, they were not specific to people's needs beyond their home environment.
We found there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. One person told us, "I see the care workers washing their hands." Another person told us, "I see the carers wearing gloves and different clothing when they giving care to my relative."
People were made aware of the complaints system. Both the people we spoke with said they were confident about how to make a complaint. They told us they had not had a reason to complain, but thought the service would respond promptly and effectively if they made a complaint. One person said, "I would complain to the agency and they would definitely do something."
We found that the provider had taken action to ensure office-based staff and managers had information to hand to check that care plans took account of identified risks or that identified risk had been reviewed appropriately. The provider had addressed the concerns we raised at the previous inspection about risk assessments being stored in the office.
People using the service were pleased with the service provided by Ezer Leyoldos. They praised their care workers. One person said, "[the care worker] really is attentive." Another person said, "I am very happy. I really depend on them." People said their care workers were reliable and arrived on time. People knew which care workers to expect and any changes were communicated in advance. The care worker told us she had enough time to spend with the family without needing to rush.
The agency provided culturally appropriate care for people from the Orthodox Jewish community. Care workers were trained in Jewish custom and practice. People using the service valued this. One person said, "My care worker isn't Jewish and is very respectful."
We saw evidence that people's needs were assessed and care was being planned and delivered in line with people's needs and wishes. However, important information about people's care was not always accessible in the records that the agency kept centrally.
The agency had robust systems for recruiting care workers who were suitable to work in people's homes. There were systems in place to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from the risk of abuse. People using the service told us they trusted their care workers.