We carried out a review of the data available to us about Care XY 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 XY, you can give feedback on this service.
Care XY is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care to adults with a range of support needs in their own houses and flats. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting 133 people with personal care.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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
Safeguarding procedures were utilised to minimise people being at risk of abuse. People, relatives and staff confirmed the support provided promoted safety to people. Many people received support from regular staff. However, some people received support from a number of different staff. Staff had received medicine training and their competence was assessed to ensure they were following safe medicine practices. Infection control training had been delivered to staff. Staff confirmed the Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] they wore. Relatives told us that staff wore PPE when entering their family member’s home.
Staff were aware of the needs of individuals and were able to support people well. Staff supported some people with their meals and drinks and to access healthcare support where this was needed. People were supported by staff to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff knew they must not restrict people. Policies and systems used supported this practice.
Staff had good knowledge about the people they supported. People's independence was promoted, and their dignity was upheld.
A needs assessment was undertaken to understand people’s situations, needs and wishes. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in the review of their care and support.
Systems were used for people and their relatives to give feedback about the care and support they or their family member received. Feedback methods included, care reviews, the spot checks of staff performance, telephone and video calls. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and they were supported and appreciated by the provider.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 04/07/2019).
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified.
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.
Care XY is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care within people’s own homes for younger and older adults with a variety of needs, including people living with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health conditions or a physical disability. At the time of our inspection the agency was supporting 90 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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 relatives told us they felt safe with care staff and staff were able to demonstrate a good awareness of each person's safety and how to minimise identified risks. People and care staff told us they were able to attend people’s care calls within a timely way and stop for the duration of their planned care call.
People were supported by care staff that were caring. People received care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people, their needs and preferences and used this to develop a good relationship with the people they visited.
People were supported by care staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood, felt confident and well supported in their role. People's health was supported as staff worked with other health/social care providers when needed to support people’s needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff understood they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People's care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences and the staff were able to explain recent changes to people’s care. People told us they were involved in assessments of their care needs and care plans were reviewed by management as and when needed.
People knew how to complain and that any concerns would be listened and responded to by the provider. The manager saw complaints as useful feedback from which to develop and improve the service.
People, relatives, staff and professionals gave us an overall positive picture about the quality of care people received, and said they were able to share their views comfortably with staff or the office.
People and relatives told us the manager and staff were approachable, organised, listened and responded to them and acted on feedback when they shared this with them.
Quality monitoring systems included audits, spot checks on staff practice and regular checks on people’s satisfaction with the service they received, by surveys, phone calls or visits from the service’s management. Whilst the service was meeting people’s expectations the registered manager was keen to consider and was actively looking for ways to improve the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was ‘good’ (published 30 September 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Care XY on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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 provider is registered to deliver personal care. They provided personal care to people who live in their own homes in the community. People may have conditions that include those relating to old age, physical disability, or a learning disability. At the time of our inspection one person used the service. They received care and support from two staff twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.
At our last inspection on 25 January 2016 we found that some improvements were needed to ensure that the person was kept safe this related to staff recruitment, medicine management and the quality monitoring of the service. We found that improvements had been made.
The provider was also the 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.
The provider had policies in place and staff had received training on procedures they should follow to ensure the risk of harm and/or abuse was prevented. They had also undertaken risk assessments to maintain the safety of people who used the service. Medicine management systems ensured that staff followed good practice so that people would be protected from errors that could cause ill health. Recruitment processes ensured that unsuitable staff would not be employed. Staff were provided in adequate numbers to meet individual needs.
The staff had received the training they required to equip them with the knowledge they needed to support the people in their care. The provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) This ensured that people received care in line with their best interests and would not be unlawfully restricted. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care. If they were unable to, their relatives were involved in how their care was planned and delivered. People were enabled to engage in recreational activities that they enjoyed and met their preferred needs.
A relative felt that the staff were kind and caring. Staff ensured that the person’s privacy, dignity and independence were maintained and promoted.
Complaints systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints. Staff and family views on the service were sought. The registered manager/provider had listened and been responsive in improving the service they provided.
The management was open and inclusive. Checks and audits were undertaken to ensure that the service was run in the best interests of the person who used it.
This was the provider’s first inspection since they had been registered with us in November 2012. This was because they [the provider] had only provided care and support to one person for a very short time before this care package. So there would not have been enough evidence for us to make judgements to rate the service.
The provider is registered to deliver personal care. They provided personal care to people who live in their own homes in the community. People may have conditions that include those relating to old age, physical disability, or a learning disability. At the time of our inspection one person used the service. They received care and support twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.
The provider was also the 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.
Medicine management systems did not follow good practice or ensure that people would be protected from errors that could cause ill health.
Recruitment processes did not follow all that was required to ensure that unsuitable staff would not be employed.
The provider had policies in place and staff had received training on procedures they should follow to ensure the risk of harm and/or abuse was prevented. They had also undertaken risk assessments to maintain the safety of people who used the service.
Staff were available to meet individual needs. A relative felt that the staff were good and caring.
The staff had received the training they required to equip them with the knowledge they needed to support the people in their care.
The provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) This ensured that people received care in line with their best interests and would not be unlawfully restricted.
People were encouraged to make decisions about their care. If they were unable to, their relatives were involved in how their care was planned and delivered.
People were enabled to engage in recreational activities that they enjoyed and met their preferred needs.
Complaints systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints.
A relative and the staff felt that the quality of service was good.