Taylored Care Limited

Updated 15 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This service moved to a new office address and was registered as a new service on 31 July 2017. This was the first inspection of the service since the move.

Our inspection activity started on 5 June 2018 and ended on 6 July 2018. It included a visit to the provider’s office on 5 June 2018 to see the registered manager and review care records, policies and procedures. The visit was carried out by one inspector and was announced. We gave the service notice of the inspection visit because it is a small service and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be available. Also, we wanted to contact people who used the service, and staff, prior to our visit to the office. This was arranged by a member of the provider’s staff and was carried out by an assistant inspector.

We spoke over the telephone with the relative of one person who was using the service and two members of staff. We spent time with the registered manager discussing all aspects of the service and we gave initial feedback to the registered manager. The provider, who was on holiday at the time of the inspection, joined in the feedback session via the telephone. We looked at two people’s care records as well as other records relating to the management of the service. These included medicine administration charts, audit records, the service development plan and the complaints folder. We wrote to four health/social care professionals who the registered manager told us had regular contact with the service. One health/social care professional responded and their views are included in the report.

Prior to the inspection visit we looked at information we held about the service and used this information as part of our inspection planning. The information included notifications. Notifications are information on important events that happen in the service that the provider is required by law to notify us about. We had not requested a provider information return (PIR) from the provider. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Updated 15 September 2018

Taylored Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger adults living with a disability, who require care and support for six or eight hours at a time, up to 24-hour care or live-in care. At the time of this inspection, the service provided care and support to four people.

This is the first inspection of this service since it moved its office address in July 2017. At the previous inspection the service was rated Good.

The inspection visit to the service’s office took place on 5 June 2018. The visit was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice as we needed to be sure that there would be someone in the office. Following the site visit the registered manager sent us further information and we wrote to health and social care professionals who had regular contact with the service. The inspection was completed on 6 July 2018.

There was a registered manager who had been in post for three months. 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. The previous registered manager, who owned and founded the service in 2010, had died suddenly in January 2018. Her husband and son had taken over the business to continue providing the service that she was so passionate about. It is a credit to her work that the service still operates in the way she intended and continues to provide a good service.

People were looked after by staff who were kind and compassionate. Staff knew each person well and supported each person in the way they wanted to be supported. Staff had been trained to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse. Risk management plans ensured that risks to both people and staff were minimised as far as possible.

There were enough staff to make sure that people were safe and their needs were met. The provider’s recruitment process reduced the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

People were given their medicines safely and as they had been prescribed. Staff followed the correct procedures to prevent the spread of infection and understood their responsibility to report any accidents and incidents.

Assessments of people’s needs were carried out to ensure that the service could meet those needs in the way the person preferred. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Staff received induction, training and support to enable them to do their job well. Further training in topics relevant to individual people’s care was provided so that staff felt fully competent. When required, staff assisted people with their meals. Staff involved other healthcare professionals such as GPs in people’s care if the person needed assistance with this.

People were cared for by compassionate and caring staff. Staff treated people kindly and showed they knew each person well. People were involved in planning their care and support. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported people to remain as independent as possible.

Care plans gave staff detailed guidance relating to the care and support each person needed so that people received personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs.

A complaints process was in place and people and their relatives were confident that any issues would be addressed. A process was being developed so that people’s end-of-life care needs would be met when this was required.

The registered manager provided good leadership and staff felt supported. Staff were clear about their role to provide people with a high-quality service, thus upholding the values of the service. Staff liked working for this service.

A quality assurance system was in place, including ways in which people, their relatives and staff were enabled to give their views about the service and how it could be improved. Audits and monitoring checks on various aspects of the service, including spot-checks on the way staff worked with people, were carried out. These had ensured that any shortfalls were addressed.

The registered manager was aware of the various matters that the service was required by law to notify CQC about. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure that joined-up care was provided to people.