We carried out a review of the data available to us about Best Care 4 U Stanmore 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 Best Care 4 U Stanmore, you can give feedback on this service.
Best Care 4 U Stanmore is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The agency provides live-in and visiting personal care support to elderly people in North London. At the time of the inspection the service provided care for 25 people. CQC only inspect the service 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.
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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
During our last inspection in May 2016 we rated the service as overall Good.
People who used the service and relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided and raised no concerns. People told us they were treated with respect and dignity and felt safe when being cared for by care support staff. People and relatives spoke positively about care support staff and said they were confident that the service was well-managed.
Appropriate risk assessments were in place. These were personalised and included information specific to each person and their needs. Where people had specific health issues, there were appropriate risk assessments which included a summary of preventative measures. These were also accompanied by an information fact sheet which provided details of specific health issues, warning signs and treatment.
Appropriate arrangements were in place in respect of medicines management. Records indicated that staff had received training on the administration of medicines. We noted that medicines administration records (MARs) were completed appropriately which indicated that medicines were administered as prescribed and this was confirmed by people and relatives we spoke with. The service had a comprehensive system for auditing medicines.
Systems were in place to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff records indicated that staff had received safeguarding training and staff confirmed this. Staff were aware of the process for identifying concerns and said that they would report their concerns to management.
People using the service experienced consistency in the care they received and received care from regular care support staff. Relatives we spoke with confirmed this and said that they were happy about this aspect of the care. People and relatives also told us that there were no issues with care support staff’s punctuality and attendance. They told us that care support staff were usually on time and if they were running late, the office contacted them to inform them of the delay.
We looked at the recruitment records and found background checks for safer recruitment had been carried out to ensure staff were suitable to care for people.
People were cared for by care support staff that were supported to have the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Care support staff spoke positively about their experiences working for the service and said that they received support from management. Records showed and care support staff received appropriate training and supervision.
Care support plans included information about peoples’ mental health and their levels of capacity to make decisions and provide consent to their care.
People told us they were treated with respect and dignity. They said care support staff were kind, caring and helpful. Staff we spoke with were able to provide us with examples of how they ensured they were respectful of people’s privacy and maintained their dignity. Staff told us they gave people privacy whilst they undertook aspects of personal care.
Care support plans were individualised and addressed areas such as people’s personal care, what tasks needed to be carried out, people’s needs and how these needs were to be met. Care support plans were comprehensive and focused on ensuring people’s individual needs and wishes were respected.
There was a management structure in place with a team of care support staff, the human resources manager, office care administrators, registered manager and director. Staff told us that the morale within the service was positive and staff worked well with one another. They told us management were approachable and the service had an open and transparent culture. They said that they did not hesitate about bringing any concerns to management.
There was a comprehensive quality assurance system which provided detailed information on the systems in place for the service to obtain feedback about the care provided. The service undertook a range of checks and audits of the quality of the service and took necessary action to improve the service as a result. The service also carried out spot checks and observations to ensure that the service was running well.
We undertook a focused inspection on the 25 January 2017 to check whether the service had made improvements and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. We inspected the safe domain only at this inspection. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for 'Best Care 4 U Stanmore' on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Best Care 4 U Stanmore is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The agency provides live-in and visiting personal care support to elderly people in North London. At the time of the inspection the service provided care for 30 people.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
At this focused inspection on 25 January 2017, the service demonstrated that they had taken sufficient action and they met the legal requirements.
We found that risk assessments were now comprehensive and included more detail and reflected potential risks to people. We also found that the service now had appropriate arrangements in place in respect of medicines. We found that Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were completed and had no unexplained gaps. Further, since the last inspection the service had introduced a medicines audit to assess and monitor medicines management.
During the inspection on 25 January 2017 the service demonstrated they were able to meet Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Consequently the service is now rated as “Good” under safe.
Best Care 4 U Stanmore is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The agency provides live-in and visiting personal care support to elderly people in North London. At the time of the inspection the service provided care for 30 people.
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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At our last inspection on 9 September 2014 the service met the regulations inspected.
People who used the service and relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided. People told us they were treated with respect and felt safe when cared for by the service. They spoke positively about care support workers and management at the service.
Individual risk assessments were completed for each person. However, the assessments contained limited information and some areas of potential risks to people had not been identified and included in the risk assessments. This could result in people receiving unsafe care and we found a breach of regulations in respect of this.
We checked the arrangements in place in respect of medicines. Staff had received medicines training and policies and procedures were in place. We looked at a sample of Medicines Administration Records (MARs) and found that there were some gaps in these. The provider confirmed that the medicines had been administered but had not been recorded appropriately on the MARs. The service did not have an effective medicines audit in place to identify these gaps. We found a breach in regulations in respect of this.
There were processes in place to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff records indicated that staff had received safeguarding training and staff confirmed this. Staff were aware of the process for identifying concerns and said that they would report their concerns to management. However staff were not aware that they could report their concerns to the local authority or the CQC and we spoke with the provider about this.
People using the service experienced consistency in the care they received and had regular care support workers. Relatives we spoke with confirmed this and said that they were happy about this.
People were cared for by staff that were supported to have the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Care support workers spoke positively about their experiences working for the service and said that they received support from management. Records showed and care support workers told us they received training and were positive about this. Appropriate checks were carried out when staff were recruited.
Care plans included information about peoples’ mental health and their levels of capacity to make decisions and provide consent to their care.
People told us they were treated with respect and dignity. They told us that care staff were caring and helpful. Staff were able to give us examples of how they ensured that they were respectful of people’s privacy and maintained their dignity. Staff told us they gave people privacy whilst they undertook aspects of personal care.
Care plans were individualised and addressed areas such as people’s personal care, what tasks needed to be done each day, time of visits, people’s needs and how these needs were to be met. Staff were provided with details of what tasks needed to be carried out.
The service had a complaints procedure in place and a system for recording complaints.
People and relatives were satisfied with the management at the service. They said that management were approachable and supportive.
The service had a quality assurance policy and checks of the service had been carried out by management. These involved quarterly reviews with people and their relatives, staff spot checks and satisfaction questionnaires.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their representatives and the staff told us, and the records we looked at. There were 10 people using the service at the time of our inspection. We spoke with three people who used the service and three care workers. We also spoke with the registered manager, the nominated individual for the service and the deputy manager. We looked at five care records and five staff records.
Is the service safe?
One person who used the service told us 'I definitely feel very safe; the carers are so caring and gentle when moving me.' There was a member of the management team on call at all times in case of emergencies. The provider ensured their staff had the skills and experience needed to support those who used the service. Care workers were trained in safeguarding awareness and could demonstrate their knowledge of this to us.
Is the service effective?
We spoke to those who used the service and were told they were happy with the care provided. Staff told us they understood people's care and support needs and said they referred to the support plan at all times. We read one comment from a relative 'there have been huge improvements in my relative's mood and the level of social activity they now engage in.' Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people whom they supported. One person told us they could see the positive results of their support 'the person I work with is no longer housebound; they have become more confident since I started to work with them.'
Is the service caring?
We were told how respect for the dignity of the person was observed and how permission was sought before any personal care was given. Before a service started, an assessment of the persons needs was carried out and a care plan was developed to meet those identified needs. One person who used the service told us 'It is clear our support worker's first priority is to my relative.' Another told us 'they are always so kind and caring towards my relative.' It was clear from speaking with staff they understood people's care and support needs and how to deliver them.
Is the service responsive?
People's needs had been assessed prior their support package started. The registered manager told us 'care workers must work to the care plan and be able to respond to changing needs.' Records confirmed people's diverse needs and care and support had been provided which met their wishes. One person who used the service told us 'my support worker is very flexible and will change plans if I ask.'
Is the service well-led?
Staff had a good understanding of the philosophy of the service. They told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Quality assurance processes were in place. We saw completed quality assurance forms of those who used the service. Care workers told us the management team were available to them at all times. One worker told us 'the management support is fantastic; I don't feel I am out there on my own.' A person who used the service told us 'I really appreciate the fact the manager regularly rings me to check I am happy with everything.'
We found that the provider respected and involved people who used the service, and included them and their relatives in all decisions about their care and treatment. We saw that care was planned and delivered in ways that met people's needs, and ensured their safety and welfare.
The provider had a system in place to ensure people were safeguarded from the risk of abuse, and that staff were skilled, experienced and qualified. The provider undertook necessary checks for recruitment of staff, and staff were well-trained for their roles.
We found that the service had a robust quality assurance system in place, and sought feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and staff.