Archived: All Care in One Ltd

Is the service safe?

All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. The provider had policies and procedures in place to protect people from harm. Staff we spoke with confirmed that they had received training on how to protect people from home. We found that not all the staff understood what safeguarding people meant and the provider should ensure further discussions and training for staff.

We saw there was no one who was being supported who did not have the ability to make decisions for themselves or who was subject to a de privation of liberty safeguard application.

Is the service effective?

All the people spoken with told us that they had been involved in an assessment of their needs and were able to tell people what support they needed. This meant that people could influence the care they received.

We asked staff about the help they provided people and they were all able to give us good detail about the support they provided. One member of staff told, 'I ask them about the support they want.' All the people spoken with told us that regular staff supported them which meant people received continuity of care from staff they felt comfortable with.

We saw that people's cultural, dietary and linguistic needs were met by staff with the appropriate skills. For example, people were supported to attend places of worship that met their individual needs.

We saw that the management of records needed to be improved. Staff were able to provide appropriate care and support to people who were able to tell them what they wanted. However staff were not provided with sufficiently detailed care plans and risk management plans that enabled them to know how to provide care that was safe and appropriate. This was particularly important where people were not able to express what support they wanted. Other records also lacked detail, for example spot checks on staff skills and work practices were not detailed. The recruitment process was not robust and did not ensure that all the required employment checks had been carried out appropriately. Training records for staff did not provide evidence of the training provided or whether staff were suitably skilled when they started to deliver care.

We saw that there was no system in place to record, monitor or analyse accidents so that lessons could be learnt and actions taken to avoid reoccurrence of avoidable accidents.

Is the service caring?

All the people spoken with told us they were happy with the care they received. We saw that people were supported to attend healthcare appointments and people were visited in hospital during admissions. We saw from daily records sampled that where staff had concerns about people's health additional visits were made and advice sought from healthcare professionals.

Is the service responsive?

Although the service was responsive to individual requests made by people there were no systems in place to gather the views of people .This meant that the service was not able to be developed taking into consideration views of staff and people who received a service.

All the people spoken with told us that they were aware of who they should contact if they were unhappy about the service provided. They all told us they were happy with the service and had not made any complaints. One person told us that the staff supporting them had been changed at their request.

Is the service well led?

At the time of our inspection we saw that the agency was lacking in leadership and as a result the management of records, quality monitoring of the service and recruitment practices needed improvement. Although people were happy with the support they needed systems in place could not demonstrate that people were aware of the service they could expect to receive and whether they received the service they paid for.

Systems in place did not fully protect people from the risks of potential risks.

The provider had failed to submit the required notifications regarding the management of the service. This meant that they had not fulfilled the requirements of the registration regulations.