You are here

Ezer Leyoldos Domiciliary Care Agency Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

About the service

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 la

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 November 2019

The service was well led.

Details are in our well led findings below.