The Care Quality Commission

Archived: SAGA Homecare Enfield

Mitre House, 66 Abbey Road, Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 2QN 0844 736 0294

Provided and run by:
Nestor Primecare Services Limited

All Inspections

4 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this unannounced inspection to check whether the provider had complied with the two Warning Notices we served about missed visits and quality monitoring, and the compliance action we made about complaints handling, following an inspection of the service on 3 April 2013.

At this visit, we found that our concerns had been addressed. We spoke with one person who uses the service and three relatives as part of the inspection process. People were positive about most aspects of the service and the care provided. Comments included, 'it's a little better than before', 'we're very fortunate, my aunt's very pleased with them' and 'the care workers are lovely.'

People who use the service and their relatives reported that all recently scheduled care visits had taken place. Most records we checked confirmed this. We saw that systems for identifying late and missed calls had been improved. Action had been taken to improve services where missed calls had been identified.

We found that the provider was taking account of complaints and comments to improve the service. One relative told us, 'office staff are very helpful.' Records showed that office staff were phoning many people to check on their satisfaction with services provided. Where people identified concerns, we saw that actions were taken. We also found that people's complaints were now being fully investigated and resolved, where possible, to their satisfaction.

3 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who use the service and three relatives. Comments about the agency varied. People made positive comments but felt areas needed improvement. For example, comments about the overall service included, 'I'm not 100% happy' and 'It's not a great service.'

Many people commented positively on the standard of care provided. However, four of the five people we spoke with told us of recent missed visits. One person said, 'they're not always on time and sometimes they don't come at all.' We found that planned care visits did not always take place, which failed to protect people against the risks of receiving care that was inappropriate or unsafe.

Many people spoke of mixed responses when they contacted the agency with concerns about the service. We found that the provider had not ensured that each complaint made was fully investigated. This failed to prevent or reduce the impact of unsafe or inappropriate care.

The provider had systems designed to enable regular assessment and monitoring of the quality of services provided, and to identify, assess and manage risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of people who use the service. However, we found that these systems were not being effectively implemented. This failed to protect people against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care.

We are taking action to ensure the provider becomes compliant with the regulations.

11 July 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency as part of a targeted inspection programme of domiciliary care agencies with particular regard to how people's dignity was upheld and how they can make choices about their care. The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

We used telephone interviews and visited people who use the service in their homes (and to their main carers) to get their views about the service. We gained the views of 12 people who use the service and 12 relatives and representatives. This included four people we met during home visits.

Most people told us that care workers were respectful towards them and provided good care. One relative said, 'Care workers have a nice manner with my wife and this makes a huge difference to her and to me as the carer.' A person we visited told us, 'I'm very satisfied with them, they're very kind.'

Some people were concerned about how the agency delivered care. One relative told us, 'I'm pleased we get the same care worker every day, as it provides continuity.' However, others told us about receiving too many different care workers, and some had concerns about care workers' punctuality. We found that the planning and delivery of care did not always ensure the welfare and safety of people who use the service.

People spoken with about making comments and complaints to the agency's office, felt that matters were not always addressed. The provider did not have an effective system to identify, assess and manage people's complaints and comments made.