We carried out a review of the data available to us about Care For Freedom Limited 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 Care For Freedom Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Care for Freedom Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community [and specialist housing]. It provides a service to adults who live with mental health conditions.
“Not everyone using Care for Freedom receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.”
The service has a registered manager. 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.
Care for Freedom are an “all-inclusive” organisation, offering their support so that all in the community can access their specialist skills and recovery-based service.
People felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about how to identify potential risks and understood their responsibilities in respect of safeguarding people. They had received safeguarding training.
Safe and robust recruitment processes were in place and had been followed to ensure that staff were suitable for the role they were employed for. There were sufficient numbers of staff assigned to meet people's needs in a timely way.
Staff were well supported in their roles. We saw that there was a comprehensive induction in place as well as on-going and refresher training in a range of topics relevant to their area of work. Staff were positive about the training they received. Staff received individual supervisions and attended regular team meetings.
The provider promoted training for all staff, ensuring that the management team were also trained to the highest standards. The provider used quality accredited schemes, ensuring that staff and managers were trained to deliver person centred care which under pined good practice and ensured both staff and people who they support have up to date and relevant information.
People were involved in planning how they wanted to be supported and how their care and support was provided. People had a detailed care plan which took account of their individual needs, preferences and choices.
Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed and measures were in place to mitigate and reduce these where possible. All care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed to ensure that they captured any changes to people’s needs and were current.
Consent was gained from people before any support was provided. People were supported to make decisions about their care and support. Staff and managers were aware of the need for decisions being made on behalf of people were in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People were supported to access health and social care professionals to help maintain their health and wellbeing, and the service worked in partnership with external partners to provide holistic care. Care plans detailed people’s support needs in relation to their health and the support required from the service. People received their medicines in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions.
People had developed positive relationships with the staff who supported them and also with office staff and managers. People's dignity and privacy was respected. Staff knew people's needs and preferences and supported them to retain as much independence as possible. People were supported to access and participate in activities in their communities.
People and staff found the registered manager and provider to be extremely supportive and approachable and spoke positively about how the service was managed. People felt listened to and their opinions were taken into account. There was a robust complaints policy and procedure in place and concerns were properly investigated and learning shared to help drive improvements. Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place along with audits to help monitor the quality and safety of the service.