Archived: Rick Limited Also known as Willis Care & Nursing (Brent)

A single inspector carried out the inspection on 17 June 2014. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Is the service safe?

Staff were appropriately vetted before they started work to ensure they were not barred from working with vulnerable adults. Staff were trained in appropriate techniques to reduce the risk and spread of infection, and followed these. Risks associated with people's support were always assessed, and measures were put in place to reduce risks, these were updated when people's needs changed.

Is the service effective?

People's care plans were fit for purpose and included appropriate guidelines for their support. Feedback from people who used the service and their relatives was mostly positive. One person who used the service told us "The care workers are just lovely and they help me a great deal", another person told us "The carers are lovely and I couldn't do without them." One relative told us "The care provided is what I need." We found that support for staff had improved, including more frequent supervision for care workers, and appraisals were planned.

Is the service caring?

Feedback from people who used the service and their relatives was positive. One person told us "They are always very nice".

We found that people were asked for their consent before care and support was provided, and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. People who used the service told us staff were "kind", "caring", "courteous", "respectful" and "friendly".

Is the service responsive?

Regular spot checks had commenced since our last inspection and people who used the service told us, that they were "A good way to tell them if I am happy about my care and carer." We found that people's care plans were had been reviewed and updated since our last inspection.

Is the service well-led?

Since our previous visit on 28 February 2014 the provider reviewed their complaints procedure and system to respond and deal appropriately with complaints. Additional staff had been recruited to support care worker's and undertake monitoring of care provided. A quality assurance questionnaire had been designed and sent to people who used the service to obtain feedback about the care provided. People who used the service told us that "Things are much better now, the office staff responds very quickly if I have any issues."

We found that assessments of needs were not always carried out in a timely manner and relatives told us that on a number of occasions only one care worker was provided, while the care plan stated that two staff were required. This meant that people who used the service were at risk of unsafe manual handling practices and their needs were not fully met.

People who used the service told us that they were involved in decisions about their care and care workers were caring, empathic and compassionate. Relatives told us "The staff is excellent and I believe that my relative is safe."

The provider had taken reasonable steps to ensure people who used the service were protected from abuse and for care workers to identify the possibility of abuse from happening.

People who used the service told us that they were in "safe hands" with staff and care workers had a good understanding of how to report allegations of abuse.

Care workers were not always properly vetted, which increased the risk of unsuitable staff providing care to vulnerable adults.

Staff received appropriate professional development. Relatives spoke very positive about the skills and abilities of care workers. One relative told us. "The care workers know what they are doing and work together with me to make my relative comfortable."

We found that complaints were not taken seriously and records of complaints were not in place.