Best Care 4 U Stanmore

Updated 23 November 2018

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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

One inspector carried out the announced inspection on 23 October 2018. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We gave the provider notice of our inspection as we needed to make sure that someone was at the office in order for us to carry out the inspection.

Before we visited the service we checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included notifications we had received from the provider about events and incidents affecting the safety and well-being of people. The provider also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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. The PIR also provides data about the organisation and service.

During our inspection we went to the provider’s office. We reviewed six people’s care plans, seven staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the service such as audits, policies and procedures. We spoke with two people who used the service and six relatives. We also spoke with six care support staff, the registered manager, human resources manager and office care administrator.

Updated 23 November 2018

We undertook an announced inspection of Best Care 4 U Stanmore on 23 October 2018.

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.