Archived: Lifecarers (Reading, Caversham & Henley)

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At a previous inspection in February 2015 we found the service needed to make improvements in the following areas, Safe, Effective and Well-led. During this inspection we noted improvements had been made in those areas.

The provider’s recruitment processes had been improved. These were now robust, which meant this helped to ensure people were cared for by staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Improvements had also been made to risk management plans. Risks to people’s well-being were assessed and management plans contained sufficient detail to enable staff to deliver care safely.

People told us they felt safe using the service. Staff were trained and knowledgeable in how to safeguard people and recognise signs of abuse. There were sufficient staff to provide a safe and consistent service to people.

People received their medicines when they required them. Staff were trained in the safe management of medicines and their skills were regularly checked.

Staff had received further training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to protect people’s right to make decisions and worked within the principles of the MCA. People’s consent was sought before care was provided.

People benefitted from being cared for by a team of well trained staff who were supported and valued by the provider and registered manager.

People were supported to eat and drink in accordance with their care plan. Their well-being was monitored and when necessary advice sought from healthcare professionals.

Staff were kind, caring and considerate. They recognised people’s diversity and met their cultural and religious needs. People received dignified and respectful care from staff who understood how to provide privacy and dignity for people.

People’s needs were assessed and a care plan specific to their desired outcomes was designed. Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated when changes occurred. People had the opportunity to discuss and change their care plan if they wished.

People were encouraged to give feedback on the service. Feedback was taken seriously and used to drive improvements. Complaints were responded to, investigated and addressed.

Improvements had been made to the monitoring and auditing of the service. Regular audits were now conducted in areas such as medicines administration records and recruitment files. A variety of methods were used to monitor the quality of the service and seek suggestions for improvement.

The culture of the service was positive and open. People and staff were complimentary about the registered manager and the leadership of the service.

People felt involved in their care planning and felt able to raise any concerns or needs. People also felt they were treated with respect by staff and relatives were satisfied with the quality of care being given saying the felt able to recommend the service to others. One relative said they were "glad we went with them".

Staff felt supported and one staff told us this was their first job in care and they "loved" their work and appreciated always having someone to talk to. One person described their work as "pretty cool". Staff presented as motivated and talked about how the person's needs and wishes always came first.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and we saw there were systems in place to manage allegations of abuse.

There were effective assurance processes in place to monitor the quality of the service.

All of the people we spoke with were positive about the care they received. People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People told us they felt safe and they would be happy to contact the provider if they had any concerns.

We looked at the training records of four members of staff. All of them showed evidence of training such as induction, moving and handling and safeguarding. Staff were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications.

People we spoke with told us they had the opportunity to provide feedback to the provider and this was acted on. The provider had systems in place to deal with comments and complaints.

The provider had not reported applicable incidents to us which concerned the provision of care and welfare to people who use the service. This meant we could not effectively monitor the safety and quality of services provided to people.

Since our visit the provider has changed their name to Lifecarers Reading at Bright Yellow Group.