We carried out a review of the data available to us about Audley Care - Audley Care Willicombe Park on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Audley Care - Audley Care Willicombe Park, you can give feedback on this service.
Audley Care Ltd provides care and support for people in their own homes living within the retirement village at Willicombe Park and to people living within the local community. The registered office is situated in a retirement village in Tunbridge Wells. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. 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 this inspection the service was providing personal care to 52 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
All people and their relatives said staff were kind and caring.
Known risks to people had been assessed, with detailed guidance for staff to minimise them. Medicines were safely managed as was the risk of the spread of infection. People felt safe with staff who knew how to recognise possible abuse and how to report it. Rotas showed there were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs and staff had been recruited safely by the provider.
Staff received a wide range of training and could access more specialised courses if required. They identified changes in people’s health or well-being and referred people appropriately to professionals for advice and treatment.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Care planning was person-centred and showed that people’s individual preference and needs had been fully considered. People knew how to make a complaint if they wished and there was an established process in place to manage any concerns.
Staff and people, we spoke with praised the acting manager for their open-door policy and responsiveness. Internal audits were regularly carried out to identify any areas which needed improvement. People and staff were able to voice their views through a number of different methods.
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 on the 10 January 2017(Published 16 February 2017.)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection.
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider and continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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 service had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place and staff knew what action to take if they suspected someone was being abused. The provider had a system in place to protect people from financial abuse. Safe recruitment checks were carried out. People had risk assessments carried out to ensure safe care was provided and potential risks were minimised. There were systems in place to ensure people were supported to manage their medicines safely.
Staff were supported with regular training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and when they needed to obtain consent from people. Staff supported people with meal preparation and were aware of people’s nutritional requirements and food preferences.
Staff were aware of people’s needs and how to develop positive relationships. People and relatives thought staff were caring. Staff demonstrated their awareness of how to provide dignified care, respect people’s privacy and encourage independence.
Care plans were personalised and staff demonstrated awareness of providing personalised care. Complaints were dealt with appropriately and in accordance with the provider’s policy.
The provider had systems to check the quality of the service provided. People and staff were asked for their views about the service. Staff had regular staff meetings to receive updates on the service.
On this inspection we found that systems had been out into place to make sure that regular checks of people's care records were made. This was in order to make sure that they had been correctly completed and information was up to date.
We did not speak with people who used the service on this occasion.
People told us they were able to make decisions and choices about the way their care and support was delivered. People and relatives confirmed that they had been involved in decisions about their care and support before they started receiving a service.
People's needs and preferences were set out in their individual care records. The information provided staff with guidance about how to meet people's needs in the ways they preferred.
People told us that they liked the staff and that staff were kind, caring and respectful. Their comments included 'I can't fault them at all', 'they are very amenable'. Comments from relatives included 'I would highly recommend them, they are very, very good', 'I certainly would not change them my (relative) gets the best care' and 'I find them really good'. People told us staff respected their independence and supported them to do the things that they were able to.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. These included internal and organisational audits and systems for gaining the views of people using it. People told us that overall they were satisfied with the service. One person told us 'It's very good and I have no complaints, I'm quite satisfied'.
We found that some people's records relating to their care and support had not always been fully completed or checked when they should have been, in order to make sure that people were receiving the care and support that they needed.
People who used the service told us that they had discussed their care and support needs with staff and that their needs were reassessed if they changed. One person said that the care plan had been reviewed about three months ago and that 'It was drawn up with me'.
People said that they were happy with the support they received and they knew the care workers who supported them. Occasionally they did not have a call covered by the careworker who they had been told in advance would be coming but they always knew the careworkers who did come to support them.
Care was delivered flexibly and requests for changes, for example to visit times or days, were usually accommodated even at quite short notice. People confirmed that late evening visits were available so that they did not have to get ready for bed before they wanted to.
People told us they liked the staff, one person told us 'I get on pretty well with my carers' and another that 'I can't fault the carers'.
People said staff supported them safely and were polite and respectful towards them. They said if they needed to they could call the office and that overall the service communicated well.