Archived: We are the Care Company Limited

The registered office is in an accessible building near local amenities.

People’s experience of using this service: People were safeguarded from harm by staff who were trained to recognise and report any signs of abuse. People were supported by sufficient staff and risks to people’s safety were assessed. People were supported by staff who were trained to administer medicine and promoted good infection control. If accidents or incidents occurred these were reviewed by the provider.

People’s care needs were assessed by the provider and information from other professionals was utilised to ensure continuity of care. Staff received training relevant to their role and supported people with meal times and accessing health care as required. The principals of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were met.

People felt well treated by the provider and were able to express their opinions. People’s dignity was protected as staff were trained to carry out tasks in a sensitive way.

People’s care was tailored to their specific needs and people were given information about their care provision on a weekly basis. People knew how to make a complaint and raise a concern and there was a system in place to ensure any investigations happened. People were supported by the provider as they approached the end of their life and care plans were revised with other involved parties.

People told us that they felt they received a good service and that their feedback was frequently requested. Staff were confident they understood the roles of various people in the organisation. People were engaged with the service and the provider engaged with wider networks and partnerships to learn and improve the service being offered.

We have rated this service as good. More information is in the full report

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated as good. (Report published 28 November 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection carried out in line with our inspection methodology.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service and any intelligence received. We will inspect the service as required under our inspection methodology.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The inspection took place on 18 October 2016 and was announced. We gave senior staff 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because we needed to be sure that they would be in.

A registered manager who was also the provider was in post 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service was run.

People were protected from the risk of potential abuse and told us they felt safe because of the way staff cared for them. Staff took action to care for people in ways which promoted their safety and people's care plans gave clear guidance for staff to follow in order to promote people’s well-being. There were enough staff employed to care for people and people and their relatives felt they could rely on staff to provide the care they needed. Where people wanted assistance to take their medicines this was given by staff who knew how to do this safely.

People benefited from receiving support from staff with the knowledge and skills to care for them. Staff cared for people in ways which promoted their rights and recognised where people were independent. Where people needed care so they would have enough to eat and drink this was given by staff. People were supported by staff who understood the risks to people’s well-being and worked with people and health professionals where needed, so people were supported to maintain their health.

Caring relationships had been built between people and staff and staff took time to chat to people so they did not become isolated. People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy was taken into account in the way staff cared for them. Staff listened to people and took action to make sure people were receiving their day to day care in the ways they wanted.

People were involved in deciding how their care should be planned and risks to their well-being responded to. Where people were not able to make all of their own decisions the views of their relatives and representatives were acted upon. Care plans and risk assessments were updated as people's needs changed. People and their relatives knew how to raise any concerns or complaints about the service. Systems for managing complaints were in place, so any lessons would be learnt.

Staff understood how the registered manager expected people’s care to be given so people would receive the care they needed in the way they preferred. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback on the quality of the service and to make suggestions for developing the service further. The registered manager checked the quality of the care provided and introduced changes to develop people’s care further.

People told us that they received regular and reliable care from courteous and polite staff. People told us that they were provided with appropriate information about the services on offer and that their care plan had been reviewed regularly.

Care planning arrangements were in place which included up to date care plans and risk assessments.

Suitable recruitment checks were completed to ensure people were cared for and supported by qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place. People told us they knew who to raise any concerns with and they felt confident their concerns would be addressed.