We carried out a review of the data available to us about Esteem Care Leeds 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 Esteem Care Leeds Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection in September 2017, we rated the service as requires improvement. The key questions safe and well led were rated Requires Improvement. Records relating to medicines management were not always accurate and quality assurance systems were not fully embedded. At this inspection, we found the provider had made the necessary improvements.
Vive UK Social Care is a domiciliary care agency which is based close to the city centre of Leeds. The agency provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes, including care to people with physical or learning disabilities, dementia or people who require end of life care. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 73 people.
Not everyone using Vive UK Social Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
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.
The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the care provided and make improvements to the quality and safety of the service. These included audits on areas covering care records and medication records.
Staff worked well together and felt supported by the management team, which promoted a culture for staff to provide person centred care.
Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People's right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.
A detailed assessment was carried out to assess people's needs and preferences prior to them receiving a service. People's personal and health care needs were met and detailed care records guided staff in how to do this. Staff followed the advice health care professionals gave them. Staff had guidance if they needed to provide people with end of life care.
Staff knew how to respond to possible harm and how to reduce risks to people. Lessons were learnt about accidents and incidents and these were shared with staff members to ensure changes were made to staff practice or the environment, to reduce further occurrences.
Medicines were administered as prescribed and staff had guidance to do this safely. Infection control risks were reduced through the use of protective equipment.
People's views were sought and changes made if this was needed. A complaints system was in place and there was information so people knew who to speak with if they had concerns.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. Recruitment checks were completed on new staff to ensure they were suitable to support people who used the service. A comprehensive induction and training programme was completed by all staff.
Where required, people were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and their health needs were regularly monitored.
Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were involved in making every day decisions and choices about how they wanted to live their lives.
The provider did not have a policy in place regarding the Accessible Information Standard. We have made a recommendation about this.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
At the last inspection in June 2016 we found the provider had breached four regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. At this inspection we found improvements had been made with regard to these breaches. However, we recommended quality assurance systems were kept under review to make sure they were fully embedded in the service and drove continuous improvements.
Vive UK Social Care is a domiciliary care agency which is based close to the city centre of Leeds. The agency provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes, including care to people with physical or learning disabilities, dementia or people who require end of life care.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
Overall, the systems in place for the safe handling of medicines were appropriate. Some improvements were needed to ensure the medicine records always reflected safe practice. For example, we found medicines had not always been transcribed correctly on medication administration records which could lead to medicines not being administered as prescribed. The registered manager made immediate arrangements during our inspection to rectify any errors we noted.
Quality assurance systems were not fully embedded in the service to ensure continuous improvement. We made a recommendation that the systems in place were kept under review to take account of this.
People told us they felt safe when using the service. Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place. Staff understood how to keep people safe and told us any potential risks were identified. We did however, find that risk assessments in people’s care and support plans were not always individualised.
We found people were cared for, or supported by, appropriately trained staff. Staff received support to help them understand how to deliver appropriate care. People told us they got the support they needed with meals and healthcare.
People who used the service said they had consistent staff who knew how to meet their needs. Some people said they were not always informed of changes to the rota and if staff were running late.
People told us staff were caring and kind. Staff showed a good knowledge of the people they supported, and understood how to maintain people’s privacy and dignity. Staff described the care they delivered in a person centred way. It was clear they had developed positive relationships with people.
People got opportunity to comment on the service and knew who to talk to if they wanted to discuss their care or raise a concern.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and said they felt well supported by a management team who were open and approachable.
Vive UK Social Care is a domiciliary care agency which is based close to the city centre of Leeds. The agency provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
Safe medicine administration practices were not followed so people were not protected against the risks of unsafe management of medicines. Although staff had received training in managing medicines, this had not given staff the required competency to manage medicines safely.
The recruitment process was not robust. We found some staff had been working unsupervised before the service had completed their background checks.
Staff did not complete a comprehensive induction when they started work which meant the provider could not be assured all staff understood how to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.
We found the systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service were not effective. Concerns we raised at the inspection had not been identified by the quality assurance systems in place. There was a reliance on informal systems which could lead to potential risks being overlooked.
We found there were enough staff available and staffing was overall managed in a way that ensured people received consistent care workers who knew people well. Two people reported occasions of missed calls in the past but said the service had improved since they reported this.
Risks to people’s safety and well-being were assessed and staff showed a good awareness of the risks people faced. However, we found some risks were not supported by a fully documented management plan.
Staff and the management team understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and were able to explain the actions they would take if abuse was suspected. People told us they felt safe and well looked after.
People received assistance with meals and healthcare when required. Staff were aware of people's nutrition and health care needs and supported people appropriately.
Staff were able to demonstrate an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff told us they would always ensure they had the consent of people who used the service before they provided any care or support. People who used the service confirmed this.
Records showed people were involved in the development of their care plans to ensure staff knew how to support them the way they wanted to be supported. Overall, the care plans we looked at were person centred. However, some updates were needed to ensure staff were fully aware of people’s current needs.
The staff we spoke with were able to describe how individual people preferred their care and support to be delivered and the importance of treating people with privacy, dignity and respect in their own home. People who used the service told us staff always provided the care they required.
The service had systems in place to manage complaints and people were informed of the complaints procedures. However, there was no process for an overview or analysis of complaints to enable identification of any patterns or trends.
We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) regulations 2014. You can see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Vive UK Social Care is a domiciliary care agency which is based close to the city centre of Leeds. The agency provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes, including specialist care to people with physical or learning disabilities, dementia or people who require end of life care. On the day of our inspection the agency was providing support services for 60 people in the community.
At the time of our inspection the service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.
The summary is based on looking at records and from speaking with people who used the service, relatives and staff. Below is a summary of what we found.
The people we spoke with told us they felt happy and safe. There were systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service. Risks to individuals were managed so people were protected.
People who used the service and people who mattered to them, such as family and friends, were encouraged to make their views known about their care. They contributed to their assessments and care plans, about how they should be given care and support. People’s care plans had information about how each person should be supported, to make sure their needs were met. People’s needs, preferences and choices for care and support were met and people told us they received the care and support they needed.
People told us staff had time for them and listened to them and they felt they mattered. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services. Community activities were also incorporated into people’s daily routines.
The manager told us they were confident all the staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental Capacity Act 2005 is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. We did not observe any restrictions of people’s liberty during the inspection. People told us their freedom was not restricted. People’s choices and decisions were respected.
Everyone we spoke with said they would be confident to make a complaint, should this be required. Staff members told us they would support people if they wanted to complain. We found the service learnt from any complaints made and investigations were thorough and objective.
There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, people had a chance to say what they thought about the service and the feedback gave the provider an opportunity for learning or improvement.
The service promoted a positive culture that was open and inclusive. People spoke positively about the approach of staff and the manager. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities.
The manager told us they took people’s care and support needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. This helped to ensure people’s needs were always met and enabled staff to be clear about their responsibilities and timescales. People were supported by staff who were trained to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had a programme of training, supervision and appraisal. However, some people we spoke with said they received a variety of staff with differing skill levels.
Recruitment practices were safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure unsafe practice was identified and people who used the service were protected.
People's care plans contained a level of information that ensured their needs were being met. We spoke with ten people and/or their relatives who told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us, 'Care is excellent.' Another person told us, 'I am very pleased with the service. They are very kind and efficient.'
Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. People we spoke with said they received their medication on time and when they needed it. Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to management of medicines. The provider had clear guidance that outlined how medicines should be obtained and protocols that staff must follow. Staff we spoke with said they had received medication training.
We found people were supported by sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff which met people's needs. People we spoke with told us there were enough staff and they always turned up on time.
There were quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care and support. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service's provided.
People's care plans contained a good level of information that ensured their needs were being met. We spoke with five people and they told us they were happy with the care, treatment and support they received. One person told us, 'The care I get is just what I need.'
People who used the service were protected against the risk of abuse. All staff had received training in abuse awareness and protecting vulnerable adults. There were resources available to all staff in relation to safeguarding. The people we spoke with told us they felt safe with the staff.
People were treated by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had a programme of on going training, supervision and appraisal.
There were quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care and support. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service's provided.