We carried out a review of the data available to us about Immediate Social Care Limited 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 Immediate Social Care Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
Medicines were managed safely and appropriate procedures around the safe administration of medicine were followed.
People who used the service felt safe with the support they received from the staff. People who used the service told us, “I had the same carer for a long time, he knows me well and I feel safe with him.”
Care workers had good understanding of how to raise any concerns if they felt people who used the service were not safe or had been abused.
People and care workers told us they were listened to and that the provider would address any concerns they might have.
Usually the same care workers supported people who used the service. This maintained consistency and ensured that care workers knew people well and could build a friendly professional relationship with them.
Where people received support with their nutrition and hydration this had been documented clearly in their care plans.
Care workers received a wide range of training, which they said was useful. Care workers were supported by their manager and received frequent supervisions and of their performance and development.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this.
People received care that respected their privacy and dignity as well as promoted their independence wherever possible.
Most people were supported by their relatives to access external healthcare support, However, when people required support in this area, this was documented in their care plan and medical appointments were arranged if they felt unwell.
Care records and assessments were detailed and reflected people’s needs and wishes.
The registered manager demonstrated compassion and commitment to the needs of the people who used the service as well as the care workers who worked for them.
The service worked with external agencies. The registered manager promoted transparency, honesty and was approachable.
Rating at last inspection: Not Rated (Report published February 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection. During our last inspection we were unable to rate the service due to only person receiving the regulated activity personal care. At this inspection we rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
We carried out an announced inspection on 22 December 2015. The last inspection of this service was carried out on 11 June 2014 and all the standards we inspected were met.
Immediate Social Care Limited provides personalised domiciliary service based on people’s physical, emotional and mental wellbeing requirements. This includes supporting people with personal care as well as behaviour management and assistance with cognitive functions.
On the day of this inspection there was one person using the service. This meant that although we were able to carry out an inspection we could not rate the quality of the service as we had insufficient evidence on which to do so.
A registered manager was in place at the time of the inspection. 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.
The service provided person centred care and support and staff promoted choice and independence.
Staff could explain how they would recognise and report abuse and received the appropriate training in safeguarding adults.
Person centred risk assessments had been undertaken. Plans were put in place to minimise any risks identified for people and staff to ensure they were safe from harm.
Staffing arrangements were adequate to meet people’s needs. There was out of hours of hour’s management cover provided by the registered manager.
There were appropriate procedures in place for the safe recruitment of staff and to ensure all relevant checks had been carried out.
Staff were up to date with their mandatory training which included safeguarding adults, first aid, fire safety, moving and handling and medicine awareness.
Staff received one to one supervision every two weeks. The content of supervision sessions recorded were relevant to individuals’ roles.
The registered manager and the staff had a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).
Staff were very clear that treating people with dignity and respect was a fundamental expectation of the service. They had a good understanding of equality and diversity and understood the need to treat people as individuals.
Care plans were detailed and personal and provided good information for staff to follow.
A complaints policy and procdure was in place, with a review date to ensure relevant changes were taken into account. Structures were in place to address complaints effectively.
The culture at the service was positive and open and the registered manager was approachable. Regular spot checks on staff performance and audits were undertaken to ensure a high quality service was provided.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, staff and carers told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe when receiving care from the staff of immediate social care. We spoke with one person, and they told us they felt safe in the service and would know what to do if they had any concerns about the service. We saw that the service had thought about how to safely provide care to people and had carried out appropriate risk assessments to ensure that care was delivered safely.
We found that the service had safeguarding procedures in place and the registered manager, who was the only person employed by the service, understood how to safeguard people they supported.
Is the service effective?
People's social, health and support needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in reviewing their care plans. The care plans were individualised and detailed what people wanted to achieve through the service. The plans had been reviewed jointly by the person concerned and the registered manager. The person we spoke with told us 'the service was planned around what I asked for.'
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. The person we spoke with was positive about the care provided. They told us in reference to a member of staff, 'X is very caring and understands me.'
Is the service responsive?
We saw that the service had a system in place to respond to complaints and comments. The service had regularly asked people's view of the service and responded to what people told them. The records we read showed that people needs were assessed before they were signed up to the service. The records showed the service supported them to access activities that were important to them. We saw that regular checks were made to ensure people had not changed their minds about what they liked to do.
Is the service well-led?
The registered manager was clear about the aims and objectives of the service and had quality assurance processes in place that checked what people thought about the service. We saw that the service had sent feedback forms to people who used the service and their relatives.