The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Always There (Leicester)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Leicester Business Centre, Entrance F, Office 5, 111 Ross Walk, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE4 5HH 0844 412 8134

Provided and run by:
Always There Homecare Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

15 January 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 15 January 2016.

Always There (Leicester) is owned by Always There Homecare Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Carewatch Care Services Limited. The agency provides personal care to people in their own homes. The service specialises in supporting older and younger adults including people with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders, mental health needs, physical disabilities, and sensory impairments, people detained under the Mental Health Act, and people who misuse drugs and alcohol,

At the time of our inspection there were 94 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. This 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.

People using the service and relatives said they thought the agency provided safe care. They gave us examples of how staff supported people safely and looked after their physical and mental well-being.

Staff were safely recruited to ensure they were fit to work with people using care services and people said they trusted the staff. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and had a good understanding of how best to support them.

People told us staff supported them to have enough to eat and drink by preparing and serving the food they liked. Staff were aware of people’s health care needs and knew when to call out a doctor if one was needed. Health care professionals provided staff with extra training if people needed support with particular medical conditions.

All the people using the service and relatives we spoke with commented on how caring the staff were and all the staff we spoke had a caring approach to the people they supported. Staff told us they found their work rewarding because they were encouraged to build relationships with the people they supported and take an interest in their lives.

People told us staff listened to them and encouraged them to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support. Relatives said they had the opportunity to be involved in their family member’s care if this was what their family member wanted. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to make choices about how they wanted their support provided.

Records showed that people received personalised care that met their needs. Care plans were focused on people’s views and how they wanted things done. People’s hopes and ambitions had also been included in care plans so staff could help them to achieve the lifestyles they wanted.

The agency supported people from a range of cultural backgrounds. The multilingual staff team were able to meet the diverse communication needs of many people using the service. People’s preferences for staff of a particular gender were respected and people’s religious and dietary needs were met.

People using the service and relatives told us they thought the agency was well-led. They said staff listened to them and provided an individual and flexible service. Staff told us they were proud to work for the agency and would recommend it to others.

Records showed the agency actively sought feedback from the people using the service and relatives through questionnaires, telephone monitoring, and face to face meetings. People were listened to when they made suggestions and the agency acted on these.

The agency had a culture of openness and people using the service and relatives said they found the staff and managers approachable. Records showed the agency was committed to continually improving its service by promoting best practice in care and support.

We found that people using the service and their relatives had a high regard for this agency. All the people we spoke with were satisfied with all aspects of the service and made many positive comments about the staff and the quality of care provided. We did not receive one criticism or negative comment about the agency from anyone we spoke with.

30 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 10 people who used the service, two carers and six members of staff. We also reviewed 10 care records and five staff files.

We noted all the care records were reviewed within two months of the commencement of care and support and at regular intervals there after either by a telephone review, face to face meeting with the person who used the service or during unannounced spot checks. This showed us that the consent to care and support remained valid.

We spoke with 10 people who used the service and asked them their views in relation to the care they received. All the people spoke highly of the quality of care and support given. One person told us 'I am more than happy. I get an excellent service'.

One member of staff told us:' We report any problems with the equipment to the family and the office. They contact the relevant company to ensure the equipment remains safe. We would never use equipment that was faulty'.

A number of people commented that the service had improved lately. One carer told us:' We used to have lots of different care workers which was not helpful as my wife has dementia. It has improved greatly and we know the care workers and what time to expect them'.

We spoke to staff and asked them to detail how their practices were monitored. They all explained that they had regular unannounced spot checks, which included observation of care and review of care records and documentation.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

The provider had a system for ensuring all staff received regular field observations, supervisions and appraisals. The provider also demonstrated a robust training matrix for identifying the training needs of all staff.

The provider demonstrated that staff were supported and adequately trained to provide care to the people who used the service

31 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who use the service. Everyone was satisfied with the care they received. People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about their care. There were processes in place to ensure that people's choices and needs were considered and respected.

All care plans were personalised and included social care needs and risk assessments. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People felt safe because the provider had effective systems for protecting people from the risk of abuse. We spoke with five members of staff and one care worker said 'I care for very vulnerable people; they are the most important people to me'.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We found that some training had been delivered to support staff to do their job however there were identified gaps in the training matrix, in particular safeguarding training. This needs addressing by the provider to ensure people are cared for by staff who are supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.