Sincere Care Limited

Sincere care Limited is a domiciliary care agency based in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The service provides personal care to adults living in their own homes. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

At the time of our inspection, the service was providing personal care to approximately 29 people. This service was supporting older people. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were processes in place for staff to follow to safeguard people from abuse and guidance and to keep them safe from harm. Staff wore appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as face masks and disposable gloves and aprons to protect people from the risk of cross infection. People and their relatives told us that they felt safe using the service.

The provider promoted a positive culture and person-centred service. People's care needs and risks were assessed and regularly reviewed to reflect people’s needs. Staff completed training to know how to care for people effectively. People using the service and their relatives, spoke positively about their experiences with the service and felt their needs were being met.

Staff told us they were supported by the registered manager to perform in their roles. There was a procedure for reporting incidents and accidents in the service and learning lessons from them to prevent re-occurrence. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People achieved good outcomes from their care. People, relatives, and staff all spoke highly of the support they received from the management team. The registered manager and nominated individual maintained oversight of people's care. The management team also took on caring roles, this ensured they built and maintained a close relationship with people and their relatives. People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring and that they felt safe. People and relatives were actively involved in their care planning and delivery.

The provider promoted a positive culture and person-centred service. Feedback from people and relatives was received. There were quality assurance systems in place for the provider to continuously improve the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 15 August 2018).

Why we inspected

We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, responsive and well-led only. We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to people living with dementia, older people, people with learning disabilities and on the autistic spectrum, people with physical disabilities and sensory impairments. Fifty-five people were using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

There were enough staff working at the service to meet people’s needs and robust staff recruitment procedures were in place. Appropriate safeguarding procedures had been implemented and staff understood how to respond to allegations of abuse. Risk assessments provided information about how to support people in a safe manner. Procedures were in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. The provider had taken steps to learn from issues of concern. Medicines were managed safely.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service to determine if those needs could be met. Staff received on-going training and supervision to support them in their role and undertook an induction programme upon commencing employment. People were able to make choices for themselves and the service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were able to choose what they ate and drank. The service worked with other agencies to help ensure people’s needs were met.

People told us they were treated with respect and that staff were caring. Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s privacy, independence and dignity. Steps had been taken to promote people’s right to confidentiality. The service sought to meet people’s needs in relation to equality and diversity issues.

Care plans were in place which set out how to meet people’s individual needs. Care plans were subject to regular review. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint. Where people required support with end of life care this had been provided appropriately.

Staff and people spoke positively about the senior staff at the service. Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of support provided. Some of these included seeking the views of people who used the service.

During this inspection we found that care plans were now personalised and the service had systems in place for seeking people’s views. However, risk assessments relating to moving and handling were still not of a satisfactory standard.

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide support with personal care to adults living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 39 people were using the service. The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

The registered manager had not undertaken training about safeguarding adults and did not have a good understanding about his responsibility for reporting any allegations of abuse the relevant local authority.

We found two breaches of 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.

People told us they did not have any missed calls and that staff attended when required. The service had robust staff recruitment procedures in place. Medicines were managed in a safe manner.

Staff undertook an induction training programme on commencing work at the service and received on-going training after that. People were able to make choices for themselves where they had the capacity to do so and the service operated within the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people were supported with food preparation they were able to choose what they ate and drank. People were supported with medical appointments if required.

People told us they were treated with respect and that staff were caring. Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s privacy, independence and dignity.

Care plans were in place for people which set out their needs and the support they required in a personalised manner about the individual person. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people told us they knew how to make a complaint if needed.

People and staff spoke positively of the management at the service. Various quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place, some of which included seeking the views of people that used the service.

People told us they felt safe. One person replied "oh yes" when asked if they felt safe when staff were in their home. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility for reporting any suspicions of abuse.

People we spoke with said they were asked for their views about the service provided. One person said "they ask me if I am happy with what they are doing. If I want anything done differently." The service had a complaints procedure in place, although the provider told us no complaints had been made about the service. We found that not all staff who worked with vulnerable adults had undergone a robust recruitment procedure to help ensure they were suitable for the work. Therefore a compliance action has been made.