Bikur Cholim Ltd

Updated 25 May 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 inspection took place on 17 April 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before we visited the service we checked the information we held about the service and the service provider. This included any notifications and safeguarding alerts. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. The inspection was informed by feedback from professionals which included the local borough contracts and commissioning teams that had placed people with the service, and the local borough safeguarding adult’s team. We reviewed the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before the inspection we spoke with three people who used the service and 13 relatives. During our inspection we spoke with the manager, the chief executive, the care manager and four care workers. We looked at five care records, medicine records, five staff files which included supervision records, appraisals and recruitment records, quality assurance records, minutes for various meetings, accidents and incidents records, training information, policies and procedures, and complaint information.

Updated 25 May 2018

We inspected Bikur Cholim Limited on 17 April 2018. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. Our last inspection took place on the 24 November 2016 and we found one breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. At this inspection we found some improvements had been made.

Bikur Cholim Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people in the Jewish Orthodox community living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection it was providing a service to 50 people.

There was not a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A new manager had started in the role and they had begun the process to apply for the position of the registered manager.

Risk assessments were in place which provided guidance on how to support people safely. However some risk assessments still lacked detailed. After the inspection the service sent us updated risk assessments which provided more detail. We have made a recommendation about assessing the risks to people.

People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe, staff were kind and the care received was good. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.

Medicines were managed in a safe manner. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed. Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care.

Care plans contained detailed information and clear guidance about all aspects of a person’s health, social and personal care needs, which helped staff to meet people’s individual needs. Some of the care plans lacked detailed however staff had worked with people and their families for long periods of time and could describe in detail the care people needed. After the inspection the service sent us updated care plans which provided more detail.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). MCA is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. People who had capacity to consent to their care had indicated their consent by signing consent forms. However, where people lacked capacity to consent to their care the provider had not followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. We have made a recommendation about following the principles of the MCA.

People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.

The service had a complaints procedure in place. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint.

Staff told us the manager and senior staff were approachable and open. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place.