We carried out a review of the data available to us about Carroll's 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 Carroll's, you can give feedback on this service.
Carroll’s Care is a domiciliary care service for older people with physical disabilities, sensory impairments, people living with dementia or frailty. The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes. 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 inspection 13 people were receiving personal care support from the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service continued to have an exceptionally positive impact on people's lives. People and relatives consistently shared very positive feedback about staff being extremely kind, "going the extra mile" and respecting people's wishes. We also found several examples of people's independence being valued and promoted though the delivery of a flexible and person-centred service. People’s comments included, “The care is excellent and all I need. I can't say enough about the girls - they are all lovely”; “The staff are very considerate and understand when I am unwell and go with that. It is a wonderful service” and “This is a personal family service, which we find just great”.
Relatives were equally positive about the care and support provided to their loved ones. One said, “My relative gets very good support. They adapt and work with (the person) to ensure they have what they need and want. It’s an excellent service for us” and “I have found all aspects of the service Carroll’s provides as exceptional; the team always go the extra mile when it comes to care. They have taken time to understand (the person) so they can be as supportive and empathetic as possible”.
The service was safe. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed, recorded in their care plans and updated when needs changed. People told us, “Yes. I certainly do feel safe. Definitely. You couldn't find better girls than we have”; “They (staff) are all lovely. I knew them all now and they know me” and “Yes, I am safe because the girls are well trained. It’s a very good service”.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People and relatives told us the service was very reliable. They confirmed that staff arrived on time, stayed for the correct length of time and no visits had been missed. Safe recruitment processes were in place.
People and their relatives were very positive about the provider's infection prevention and control processes. They told us staff always wore appropriate personal protective equipment in their homes.
People's needs were assessed before the service began to provide care and support. This ensured the service was able to meet people's needs and that there was clear guidance for staff to follow in relation to people's care.
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 and relatives were confident staff had the skills and knowledge to provide appropriate care. Comments included, “They are well organised, and we are pleased with our choice of service” and “I would say the staff are confident and competent”.
People’s dietary requirements and preferences were included in their care plans. Staff supported some people individually with menu planning, shopping and preparing meals, as required. The service worked well with other agencies, such as local GPs and specialist nurses, which resulted in a positive impact on people's lives.
Care was personalised to meet individual needs and was delivered in a way to ensure maximum flexibility, choice and continuity of care. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care and reviewing care needs to ensure they received the right support in line with their choices. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with friends and family.
Information was available to people on how to raise concerns or make a complaint if they had a need to. No complaints had been raised since the last inspection of the service.
The registered provider and senior management team had developed a person-centred culture at the service. People repeatedly told us the service was reliable and enabled them to remain at home, supporting their choices. Comments included, “I am thrilled with the service and they have my full admiration”; “I give them top marks”.
The management of safety, risk and governance was effective as the provider had good oversight of the service. People had regular opportunities to feedback their experience of 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 26 April 2018)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
We found the Caring domain to be Outstanding. The care and support people received was completely creative and flexible. People were always treated with kindness and respect. The registered manager led a team of staff who were highly motivated to offer care that was exceptionally compassionate and kind. Staff supported people and their families and were empathetic to their needs. One relative said “You can see they love [family member]. The way they talk with them, the care they take. They are with me in keeping [family member] home.”
Staff responded to unscheduled emergencies and were the first line of support for some people and their relatives. They understood what was important to people and helped them in whatever way was needed.
People received care that was responsive to their needs because all staff involved in the service understood the importance of knowing people well and continually checking that the support they were providing continued to be what the person required.
People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. One person said “I get very good service all round. There are no worries with any of them.” A relative said “I can relax knowing they know what they are doing.”
People received the particular care required to keep them safe in their own homes. They told us about the arrangements in place to enable staff to enter their homes safely and with regard to their privacy and independence.
The provider had systems and processes in place to keep people safe and minimise the risk of abuse. Potential new staff were thoroughly checked to make sure they were suitable to work with people in their own home. New staff were able to shadow experienced staff and did not complete visits to people alone until they felt confident.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of regular staff to meet their needs. People received reliable support from a team they knew. Staff arrived on time and did not let people down.
People were assessed to establish whether they needed or required assistance with medicines. Staff understood the varying levels of assistance that could be offered to people and the importance of clearly recording any medications they prompted or administered to people.
People received effective support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People and their relatives felt confident that staff were trained and competent to deliver the range of care and support required.
People were supported to see healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. If they became unwell staff would contact family members or were able to call a doctor. When people needed to attend hospital the service offered flexible support by moving the time of their visits.
People only received care and support with their consent. Staff told us they always checked when entering people’s homes that they wanted care and support that day.
People received a range of services according to their assessed needs and personal preferences. People could choose how much care they required. Some people received two visits weekly to assist with a shower. Other people required several visits a day to enable them to stay safely in their own homes. Staff knew people and if they were unwell, or if a family member was away, additional visits could be made on a short term basis.
The service was well led by the registered manager and care co-ordinator who put people receiving a service firmly at the centre of the service they provided. They listened to people and took action to ensure the service people received was always very reliable, flexible and caring.
This inspection was announced and took place on 7 December 2015, 8 December 2015 and 10 December 2015. Carroll’s provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 35 people were receiving support from the service. 25 people were receiving personal care. Other people received help with cleaning or shopping. This part of the service is not regulated by us and was not part of this inspection. The majority of people received regular short support visits at a time to suit them.
The agency was established by the provider some years ago and provided a service to people in the Minehead area. In May 2015 they moved to an office in the centre of Minehead.
The last inspection of the service was carried out on 18th May 2014 when the service was at the previous location. No concerns were identified with the care being provided to people at that inspection.
There is a registered manager in post. The registered manager is also the provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.
People told us they felt safe receiving care and support from the agency. One person told us, “What can I say? I am safe because they are reliable. They have always looked after me. I’m happy with the service.” Another person said “I have no worries. They never let you down” Relatives told us they could rely on the service to keep their family members safe.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs in a relaxed and unhurried manner. People knew staff who visited them regularly. Staff told us their rotas were well planned and there was sufficient time to get from one care visit to another.
People received effective care and support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.
When people were unwell extra support and care was provided. Staff were pro-active in reporting when people were unwell and after establishing their wishes took action. They communicated with relatives and health and social care professionals so people had appropriate additional care and treatment.
People who used the service were happy with the staff and got on well with them. Everyone we spoke to was satisfied with the care they received and was positive about staff who visited them. Staff were always kind and polite to them. One relative said there had been many occasions when they had been delighted by the kindness shown to their family member by staff who always “went the extra mile.”
People received care that was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes and preferences. People were able to make choices about how the service supported aspects of their day to day lives. They or their relatives were able to commission the services required. People were able to choose how much support they required and when it was delivered.
The manager had a clear vision of the service they wanted to supply to people. They provided a service that was reliable and employed staff who were kind and conscientious. There were systems in place to monitor the service supplied to people and to address any issues raised by people.