KLM Home Cares

Updated 20 June 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Before the inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We contacted the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. Both organisations told us they did not hold any information about the service.

The inspection took place on 8 and 10 May 2017 and was announced. We telephoned the service and gave them notice on Thursday 4 May 2017 because it is small and the registered person is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. On 8 May 2017 we visited the provider’s office and telephoned some people who used the service, their relatives and staff. On 10 May we telephoned more people. One adult social care inspector carried out the inspection. At the time of the inspection four care workers assisted people with their personal care.

When we visited the office we spoke with the registered person who manages the service. We also spoke with, on the telephone, three people who used the service, four relatives and three staff members. We looked at documents and records that related to care and support and the management of the service.

Updated 20 June 2017

The inspection took place on 8 and 10 May and was announced. This is the first inspection of KLM Home Cares.

KLM Home Cares is registered as an individual so they are a sole trader who is self-employed. They are registered to provide personal care to people in their own home. Nine people were receiving personal care at the time of the inspection. The individual is the ‘registered person’. 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 we spoke with and their relatives said the service was safe. They were complimentary about the staff who cared for them and had no concerns. They had regular contact with the registered person who was described as ‘nice’ and ‘approachable’. People felt the service was person centred and were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Everyone told us they would recommend the service to others.

People’s care was assessed and planned, and preferences around care delivery were identified. When required people received appropriate support to make sure their nutritional and health needs were met. Risk assessments were completed around individual needs and the environment, although at times it was not clear that risk was being appropriately managed because the assessment was confusing. People said they received their medicines as prescribed but guidance around administering medicines was not always appropriate or consistently followed. We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines.

Staff felt well supported and said they had received training to help them understand how to do their job well. Staff knowledge around safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was limited; the registered person said they were going to make sure additional training was provided.

People received care from familiar and consistent care workers who arrived on time and stayed for the agreed length of time. Recruitment checks were carried out before staff started work although these were not always done thoroughly. We have made a recommendation about recruitment.

Everyone we spoke with told us the service was well led. We saw people were encouraged to share their views about the service. The registered person was knowledgeable about the service, its vision and values. They had systems in place for assessing the quality of the service although not all were formalised.