We carried out a review of the data available to us about Goldsmith Personnel Limited (East London) 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 Goldsmith Personnel Limited (East London), you can give feedback on this service.
This inspection took place on 22 and 23 May 2018 and was announced. At the last inspection in March 2016, the service was rated as overall Good but we found one breach of the regulations because recruitment processes were not robust. During this inspection, we found improvements had been made.
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.
Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with people. The provider used a call monitoring system to ensure visits to people were not missed. Risk assessments were carried out to mitigate the risks of harm people may face. There were systems to manage people’s medicines. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection.
People had an assessment of their needs to ensure the provider could meet their requirements. New staff received induction training at the start of their employment and staff were offered regular training opportunities. Staff were supported with regular supervisions to ensure they could deliver care effectively. People were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and to maintain their health. The provider and staff knew about their responsibility to obtain consent from people before delivering care.
Staff described how they developed caring relationships with people they supported. People and their relatives were included in decision making about the care that was delivered. Staff were trained in equality and diversity. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted and their independence was maintained.
Care records were personalised and contained people’s preferences. Staff understood how to deliver a personalised care service. The service had a complaints procedure and complaints were dealt with appropriately. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy with any aspect of the service. The provider kept a record of compliments made to the service.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the service. The provider had a system to obtain feedback from people and their relatives about the quality of the service in order to make improvements where needed. Staff had regular meetings so they could contribute to the development of the service. The provider carried out spot checks and quality assurance checks of the work of staff to monitor the quality of the service being delivered. The provider worked with other agencies to share good practice and find ways to make improvements to their service.
We have made one recommendation about specific health conditions. Further information is in the detailed findings below.
There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service did not have a robust recruitment process because staff references did not always correspond with their application forms. We found staff reference’s completed after the employee had started providing care to people and verbal references were recorded with minimal detail.
Staff had undertaken training about safeguarding adults and had a good understanding of their responsibilities with regard to this. Risk assessments were in place which provided information about how to support people in a safe manner. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found there were enough staff working to support people in a safe way in line with their assessed level of need. The service had arrangements for the management of medicines to protect people against the risks associated with medicines.
Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.
Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care.
The registered manager was open and supportive. Staff, people who used the service and relatives felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback on the service. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place.