J.C.Michael Groups Ltd Croydon

J C Michaels Group Croydon Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. At the present time it provides a service for 65 people. The Care Quality Commission (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.

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

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the service they received. They told us they received support from a regular team of carers and this enabled them to build up trust and confidence with the staff who supported them. Both the people and their relatives told us they felt safe and were protected from the risk of abuse. We saw the service had safeguarding procedures in place that staff were well aware of. Staff told us they received training on safeguarding people.

Risk assessments and risk management strategies were in place as part of the assessment and support planning process. This meant risks to people and to staff were minimised.

There were robust recruitment practices in place and sufficient staff levels to meet people's needs.

Some people receiving care did not need support with their medicines. For these people, their relatives undertook the responsibility for this. The relatives we spoke with confirmed this. Where this was not possible and where people did not manage their own medicines, staff prompted people. We saw evidence that all staff received appropriate training to help ensure people received their medicines safely and staff had clear guidance to follow. Staff told us the training was effective and they received refresher training every year.

The registered manager ensured that all staff received appropriate training and support to understand and to manage COVID-19. This included best practice for infection control and the use of PPE.

There were systems in place to ensure that accidents, incidents and risks were appropriately recorded and included details of preventive strategies used by the service to reduce the likelihood of events occurring in the future.

Referral information was comprehensive. The provider also carried out their own assessments of need and risk and these informed people’s support plans which were reviewed and updated annually or as people's needs changed.

People told us they were well supported by staff. They were supported to eat and drink according to their dietary requirements taking into consideration people's preferences.

People and their relatives told us they were treated with dignity and respect. They told us staff had the right skills to deliver appropriate care and support.

People and their relatives said the registered manager welcomed feedback and they said complaints were dealt with swiftly and professionally. People told us they thought the service was well led and that they were very happy with the support they received.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the services provided to people which ensured good governance. Technology was used effectively by the provider to ensure people were informed promptly about potentially missed or late calls. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified. The culture of the service was positive, open and person centred.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was good (published 13th December 2019).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted because the service had not received a comprehensive inspection since November 2019.

Follow up

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

J.C.Michaels Croydon is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. At the present time it provides a service for 139 mostly older people. Not everyone using the service receives personal care. Care Quality Commission (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.

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

At the last inspection the service did not have a registered manager in post and had been without a registered manager since October 2016. For this reason, we rated the service as requires improvement. Since the last inspection a manager became registered with the CQC on 15 August 2018.

The service was well led by the registered manager who was keen to employ innovative ways of working to develop the service. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to people which ensured good governance.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the care and support they received from staff.

Comprehensive risk assessments and risk management strategies were in place as part of the assessment and support planning process. This meant risks to people and to staff were minimised.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. The service had safeguarding procedures in place that staff were well aware of.

Staff received training on safeguarding people.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

There were robust recruitment practices in place and sufficient staff levels to meet people’s needs.

Accidents, incidents and risks were appropriately recorded and included strategies to reduce the likelihood of events re-occurring in the future.

People's nutritional needs were met and where people required support with nutrition, care plans provided staff with guidance on people's support needs.

Services were delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff sought consent prior to providing care and offered people choices to encourage people to make their own decisions.

People were supported to have healthier lives. Staff assisted them to access health professionals when needed to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.

People told us they benefitted from caring relationships with the staff.

People were treated as individuals by staff committed to respecting people's individual preferences.

The provider had systems in place to ensure concerns and complaints were responded to in an appropriate way.

The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified. The culture of the service was positive, open and person centred.

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

Rating at last inspection and update:

The last rating for this service was good overall with a rating of requires improvement for the well-led domain (published 15 June 2017). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection in line with our inspection schedule. We found the service met the characteristics of a "Good" rating in all areas.

Follow up:

We will 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.

The service did not have a registered manager in post. An acting manager was fulfilling this role. 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.

We were informed that an application for a temporary registered manager had been made. However, this application had been made by a different person than the person who had been acting as manager and there has been no registered manager for six months.

People told us they felt safe using Aquaflo Care Ltd and felt that staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were aware of each person’s individual needs and people felt that staff were suitably skilled at their job.

The service had appropriate safeguarding adults procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. Procedures were in place to support people where risks to their health and welfare had been identified. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood issues of consent and acting in people’s best interests. Staff had completed an induction when they started work and they had received training relevant to the needs of people using the service.

The care service provided people with appropriate information about the service. People and their relatives said staff were kind and caring and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were consulted about their care and support needs and care plans were in place that provided information for staff on how to support people to meet their needs.

Care records focused on the person and were updated according to any changes in people’s health and well-being. People were supported to have their health needs met.

People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and were sometimes contacted by the service by telephone or visited by a member of the office team.

The acting manager provided leadership and encouraged an open and transparent culture amongst staff. The provider had a number of audits and quality assurance systems to help them understand the quality of the care and support people received and look at ways to continually improve the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.