You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

We inspected Bikur Cholim Limited on 17 April 2018. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. Our last inspection took place on the 24 November 2016 and we found one breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. At this inspection we found some improvements had been made.

Bikur Cholim Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people in the Jewish Orthodox community living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection it was providing a service to 50 people.

There was not a registered manager at the service at the time of our 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A new manager had started in the role and they had begun the process to apply for the position of the registered manager.

Risk assessments were in place which provided guidance on how to support people safely. However some risk assessments still lacked detailed. After the inspection the service sent us updated risk assessments which provided more detail. We have made a recommendation about assessing the risks to people.

People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe, staff were kind and the care received was good. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.

Medicines were managed in a safe manner. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed. Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care.

Care plans contained detailed information and clear guidance about all aspects of a person’s health, social and personal care needs, which helped staff to meet people’s individual needs. Some of the care plans lacked detailed however staff had worked with people and their families for long periods of time and could describe in detail the care people needed. After the inspection the service sent us updated care plans which provided more detail.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). MCA is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. People who had capacity to consent to their care had indicated their consent by signing consent forms. However, where people lacked capacity to consent to their care the provider had not followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. We have made a recommendation about following the principles of the MCA.

People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.

The service had a complaints procedure in place. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint.

Staff told us the manager and senior staff were approachable and open. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was safe. Staff were able to explain to us what constituted abuse and the action they would take to escalate concerns.

Risk assessments were in place which set out how to manage and reduce the risks people faced.

Medicines were recorded and administered safely.

Staff were recruited appropriately and adequate numbers were on duty to meet people’s needs.

People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was effective. Staff had received the training and support they needed to perform their roles.

People's needs had been assessed and care planned in a person-centred way.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported to eat and drink in line with their preferences.

The service worked with other services and healthcare professionals involved in people's support.

People were supported to have their routine healthcare needs met.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was caring. People and their relatives told us that they were well treated and the staff were caring. People could make choices about how they wanted to be supported and staff listened to what they had to say.

People were treated with respect and the staff understood how to provide care in a dignified manner and respected people’s right to privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was responsive. People’s needs were assessed and care was planned in line with the needs of individuals. People and their relatives were involved in planning their own care.

The service had a complaints policy and complaints were resolved in line with the policy.

People’s cultural and religious needs were respected. Staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.

The service had clear systems in place to ensure people received appropriate care at the end of their lives.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was well-led. Staff told us they found manager and senior to be approachable and there was an open and inclusive atmosphere at the service.

The service had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place.

The service worked in partnership with key organisations to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.