Angels By Classic (Healthcare At Home) Limited

Updated 13 December 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.

Inspection activity started on 18 October 2018 when we visited the office premises and ended 1 November 2018 when we gave feedback to the registered manager.

This was an announced, comprehensive inspection carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. They assisted us with telephone interviews of people who used the service and relatives where appropriate. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we wanted to be certain the registered manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection visit. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to make arrangements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out their experience of the service.

As part of our inspection planning, we requested that the provider complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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. The provider had been unable to submit the PIR within the timescale due to a technical issue but they provided us with a hardcopy and electronic version as part of this inspection. We also reviewed information we held about the service including feedback sent to us from other stakeholders, for example the local authority and members of the public. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about events and incidents that occur including unexpected deaths, injuries to people receiving care and safeguarding matters. We reviewed the notifications the provider had sent us.

During the inspection we spoke with the director of the company, the accountant, the registered manager and five care workers. We received electronic feedback from three care workers, three relatives and three community professionals.

We reviewed the care records of ten people to check they were receiving their care as planned. We looked at records relating to the management of the service, staff recruitment and training, and systems for monitoring the quality of the service.

On 29 October 2018 with their permission, we visited three people who used the service and a relative in their own homes. On 30 October 2018 and 1 November 2018, we carried out telephone interviews and spoke to seven people who used the service and five relatives.

Updated 13 December 2018

Angels By Classic (Healthcare At Home) Limited is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and live in care to people in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults, people living with dementia, mental health impairments, physical disabilities, sensory impairment and younger adults. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. Not everyone using the service receives the 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.

At the time of this announced inspection of 18 October 2018, there were 104 people who used the service.

At our last inspection on 21 and 28 July, we rated the service overall good. The key questions safe effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated good.

At this inspection 18 October 2018, we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service continued to provide people with a safe service. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. Risks to people continued to be assessed and managed well, including from abuse and in their daily lives. Care workers had been recruited safely with enough care workers to cover people’s planned visits. Where people required support with their medicines, this was done safely. There were infection control procedures and equipment in place to guide care workers in how to minimise the risks of cross infection.

The service continued to provide people with an effective service. Care workers were trained and supported to meet people’s needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where required, people were supported with their dietary needs, to maintain good health and access healthcare services where needed. The service worked with other organisations in people’s care to provide a consistent service.

The service continued to provide people with a caring service. Care workers had developed good relationships with people, treating them with kindness and compassion. They consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

The service continued to provide people with a responsive service. People received care that was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their individual needs. People’s care records were accurate and reflected the care and support provided. Where required there were systems in place to care for people at the end of their lives. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints and acted where needed.

The service continued to provide a well-led service. A system of audits ensured the provider had oversight of the quality and safety of the service and shortfalls were identified and addressed. There was a culture of listening to people and positively learning from events so similar incidents were not repeated. As a result, the quality of the service continued to develop.