We carried out a review of the data available to us about Chosen Care Group 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 Chosen Care Group Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Chosen Care Group is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 162 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems were in place, including risk assessments to keep people safe. Recruitment practices were robust, and mostly people received consistent care in a timely manner. There were systems in place to make sure people received their medicines safely and to protect them from the risk of infection. The service analysed accidents and incidents to prevent reoccurrence and keep people safe and well.
Staff were supported through training and supervisions to provide effective care and support. People were supported to have their nutritional needs met and the service worked well with other health and social care professionals to provide holistic care and support and keep people well. 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 practice.
People had mixed feelings about how caring the service was, but they told us they were involved in their care package. People felt they were encouraged to be as independent as possible. Care plans did not initially reflect people’s needs relating to equality and diversity. Following the inspection, the service updated people's care plans to ensure equality and diversity was considered. We made a recommendation to ensure staff did not use their mobile phones in people’s homes.
People received individualised care that met their needs. Information was provided to people in an
accessible format. Mostly, people told us they felt able to make a complaint and were confident that complaints would be listened to and acted on. People received responsive end of life care; following the inspection the service advised they would update their paperwork to ensure end of life care was discussed when care packages started.
Mostly people, relatives and staff spoke positively about how the service was managed. There were systems in place to manage and monitor the quality of the service provided. The management team had regular contact with people using the service and staff. They welcomed suggestions on how they could develop the service and make improvements. The registered manager liaised with other health and social care professionals to ensure a high-quality service was being delivered.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 26 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.
At the last inspection on 29 June 2015, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Each person had a risk assessment which identified possible risks and the actions staff needed to take. Care staff had good understanding of how to recognise and report allegations of abuse. The staff we spoke with showed sound understanding of how to recognise and report allegations of abuse. Staff were appropriately checked to ensure that they were safe to work with people.
Care staff had the experience and knowledge required to support people in their homes. They told us they had received training, induction and supervision to support people effectively. People's nutritional needs were identified and appropriate support provided as required.
People received support that enabled them to have choice and control of their lives. They had an opportunity to advise care staff how they would like to be supported. Care staff demonstrated caring attitude to people and always stayed for the whole time allocated to them to complete tasks.
Care plans and risk assessments were personalised and showed each person received support and care that reflected their needs. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of care plans. The service also had a complaints procedure which was used as a learning tool to improve the service.
There was a clear management structure in place for the smooth running of the service. People, relatives and staff told us that they were happy with the management. Quality of care was reviewed through various systems including regular audits of the service, telephone calls to monitor care and survey questionnaires.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We undertook an announced inspection of Speiuss Ltd on 29 June 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. At our last inspection on 29 April 2013 the service met required standards in all the areas we inspected.
Speiuss Ltd is a domiciliary care agency providing a service to people living in the London boroughs of Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Havering, and Newham. At the time of the inspection there were 135 people using the service.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
From our discussions with people using the service, relatives and other stakeholders we found that people were satisfied with care and support provided. Relatives told us that staff were kind and ensured people's respect and dignity. We were informed by relatives and the registered manager staff supported the same people for a long time and this ensured continuity of service and allowed staff to know people well and build positive relationships.
Staff were appropriately vetted. The registered manager told us all staff employed by the service had been vetted before starting work. Staff files showed that two written references, identity and police checks had been carried out on all staff. We noted that salaries were paid into staff bank accounts. All these ensured that people were supported by staff who were appropriately checked.
Each person had a care plan which was based on their assessments and reflected their needs. The care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. However, some care plans did not include sufficient information guidance about some people's health conditions. Even though staff were not required to support people with these conditions, their knowledge of them would be beneficial in a case of an emergency. We have made a recommendation relating to staff understanding of the health conditions of the people who use the service.
Relatives told us that staff were caring. They said staff arrived and left on time. We were informed that staff completed their tasks before leaving and sometimes did additional work for people. Discussions with staff and records indicated that staff had attended a range of training programmes and an induction programme before starting work with people. We noted that regular staff supervision annual appraisal took place. This showed that appropriate systems were in place to support staff to do their job.
There was clear management structure in place which was understood by staff. This ensured that staff had specified responsibilities and accountabilities in relation aspects of running the service. People told us they knew how to contact staff if they had a concern. We noted the registered manager sought feedback from people and regularly monitored the quality of the service through telephone calls and visits to people's homes. This indicated that the service was well-led.