The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: A K Care Limited - 110 Trafalgar House

Grenville Place, Mill Hill, London, NW7 3SA (020) 8906 7734

Provided and run by:
AK Care Ltd

All Inspections

7 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who use the service and their representatives. Most people praised the service and the care provided. Comments included, 'I'm very happy with them' and 'the staff are fine, jolly, and know what to do.' People told us that they usually received the same care worker. There was some feedback about occasional concerns with care workers' punctuality, however, overall we found that care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found that recruitment and selection processes were in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before care workers began working in people's homes. We also found that accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

However, we found that training, supervision and appraisal arrangements for care workers failed to ensure that they were appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities to deliver care to people safely and to an appropriate standard.

Two people we spoke with explained how they had informed the management team of recent minor concerns with the services provided. It did not appear to them that matters had been addressed. We found that the provider's systems of checking the standard of care provided in people's homes, and sending surveys to people about their satisfaction with the service, were not operated effectively. This put people at risk of receiving care that was not safe or at an appropriate standard.

1 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who use the service and one relative about this agency. Everybody was happy with the quality of services provided, and everybody felt in control of their care. Comments included, 'it's a very good service', 'the staff are fantastic', and 'the care staff are friendly and nice, and whatever you need they will help you with.'

People said they had regular contact from the manager about how they experienced the service, and that the manager was responsive to any matters they raised. People praised the staff supplied by the agency. Discussions with the manager and staff showed they had good awareness of people's individual needs and circumstances, and that they knew how to provide appropriate care in response.

We found, however, that recently appointed staff had started providing personal care to people in their homes before the provider had acquired full recruitment checks including written references in relation to previous care employment. This meant the provider's recruitment systems put people at risk of receiving care from someone who may not be of good character.

We also found that accurate records of the care provided to each person, and in relation to employees and management, were not always maintained or could not be located promptly when required. This failed to protect people against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care arising from a lack of proper information about them.

2 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People commented they had regular carers who visited them. They told us a copy of their care plan was available in their home for staff to look at. People told us they felt able to direct the care and commented 'I have no problem in telling people what to do to help me, they understand independent living and I have no problems with them.' Another person told us 'I feel able to tell staff what I'd like them to do.'

People commented that the service was quite flexible and they could receive care 'as and when' they needed it. They told us they were satisfied with the service and that it met their needs. One person told us 'I'm pretty impressed' and another person told us that the service was 'not too bad'. Another person however commented that they were not satisfied with the service of one of their carers and described their support as 'diabolical' because they were not efficient in carrying out their duties.

People told us they felt comfortable with the staff that supported them. One person told us 'they (staff) treat me alright'. People told us that they felt able to go straight to the head of the agency if they had any concerns, although they had not had a reason to do so to date.

One person told us that it was very difficult to get good carers and to arrange alternative carers at short notice. Another person told us 'they do their job and they go'.

We asked people if they felt that staff received enough training to carry out their job. One person told us 'they (the agency) run courses, they've had all the training, health and safety for example.' They went on to describe the staff as 'pretty clued up'. Another person told us 'they (staff) are supported to do different sorts of things like manual handling, I think they go to classes, I suppose they could do with more training but its difficult in work time.'

We asked people about the systems that the agency had in place for checking the quality of the service. One person told us that they regularly talked to the Manager and that the communication was good. Others however told us that they never received a call from the agency to check how things were going. One person also felt that the agency had not responded promptly enough in finding an alternative carer when they felt the carer supplied was not efficiently carrying out their duties. One person told us that they felt that as the agency showed no interest in checking up on the quality of the care being delivered, the carers did not care either about the quality of care they provided. The person told us that the manager was 'avoiding them'.