Caires Care

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good

There were sufficient, safely recruited and well-trained staff to ensure people received care and support when they had requested it. Calls were planned to take into account travelling time, which was reflected in the feedback we received that calls were rarely late. People were told if care staff were going to be late.

Risks associated with care and also people’s homes were well assessed, with guidance in place to show how risks could be minimised. Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse and medicines were well managed.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service this practice. People gave consent for care and confirmed they were offered choice.

New staff had a comprehensive induction, and we saw evidence staff had the appropriate support to remain effective in their roles. People we spoke with said they received good support at mealtimes.

Caires Care is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people in their own homes. It provides a service to older people and younger adults. At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good

There were sufficient, safely recruited and well-trained staff to ensure people received care and support when they had requested it. Calls were planned to take into account travelling time, which was reflected in the feedback we received that calls were rarely late. People were told if care staff were going to be late.

Risks associated with care and also people’s homes were well assessed, with guidance in place to show how risks could be minimised. Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse and medicines were well managed.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service this practice. People gave consent for care and confirmed they were offered choice.

New staff had a comprehensive induction, and we saw evidence staff had the appropriate support to remain effective in their roles. People we spoke with said they received good support at mealtimes.

The culture of the service was focused on people and we found it was extremely caring. People we spoke with valued the care and support they received and we saw the registered manager and staff had gone over and above to make a positive impact on people’s lives. People received additional support to avoid social isolation and in making their homes accessible which had a positive impact on their lives. There was an exceptionally caring approach to supporting people to express their sexuality safely.

People were empowered in the writing of personalised care plans, which used their own language to describe needs and preferences and demonstrated a very good level of involvement. The culture of the organisation focused on respect and empathy for people as individuals, reflected in the quality and presentation of documentation, content of and approach to training and in the personalised support people received.

Needs and preferences were assessed and documented before people began to use the service. People were involved in reviewing their care plans and told us they had not had reason to make complaints about the service.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager, and found they had a very clear vision for the kind of care they wanted to provide. People and staff were asked for their opinions of the service in order to help the registered manager ensure quality of delivery and make any improvements identified.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The service is a domiciliary care agency that is registered to provide the regulated activity personal care. This includes support with activities such as washing and dressing, the provision of meals and the administration of medication for people living in their own home. On the day of the inspection two people were receiving assistance with personal care. The agency office is situated in a community centre in the centre of Wakefield, and there is parking available for people who

wish to visit the agency office.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

We saw there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people's individual needs, and care workers told us that they spent enough time with people to complete the agreed tasks. However, although there were recruitment policies and procedures in place, these had not been followed when new staff had been recruited.

This was a breach of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found that people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding issues. Staff received training on safeguarding adults from abuse at the time of their induction and then as refresher training, and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.

Staff confirmed they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them. The training records showed that all staff had completed induction training and the training that was considered to be essential by the agency.

It was apparent that care workers genuinely cared about the people they supported. The feedback we received confirmed that people had positive relationships with care workers and the registered manager. It was clear that care workers and the registered manager knew the people they supported very well.

There was a complaints policy and procedure and this had been made available to people who received a service and their relatives. At the time of this inspection, no complaints had been received by the agency. There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who received a service and we saw that this feedback was positive.

There had been no accidents or incidents involving people who received a service from the agency or staff. There were documents in place ready to record and analyse accidents and incidents should they occur.

We received positive feedback about the management of the service from everyone who we spoke with.