The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: HR Partners Care Limited

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Burford House, Burford Road, Stratford, London, E15 2ST (020) 8503 1155

Provided and run by:
HR Partners Care Limited

All Inspections

21 and 22 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 21 and 22 October 2015 and was announced. The service was last inspected in June 2013 and was found to be fully compliant with all the outcomes we looked at during that inspection.

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide support with personal care to adults living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection they were providing support with personal care to five people.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Not all staff working at the service received all appropriate training about how to support people in a safe and competent manner. Care plans were task centred and did not provide personalised information about how to meet the individual needs of people.

We found two breaches of regulations. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.

The service had appropriate safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people safely. The service had enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs. Employment checks were carried out on staff before they commenced working at the service.

Staff were able to shadow experienced staff as they supported people and received one to one supervision. People were able to consent to their care and make choices about how it was provided. People were able to make choices about what they ate and drank. The service supported people to attend medical appointments.

People told us they were treated with respect by staff. Staff had a good understanding of how to support people in a way that promoted their privacy and independence. The provider had a complaints procedure in place and people were aware of how to make a complaint.

People that used the service and staff told us they found senior staff to be approachable and helpful. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place, some of which included seeking the views of people that used the service.

19 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found that people's care was planned and delivered in a way that met their needs. People told us they were happy with the way in which care was delivered and that it was delivered in accordance with their care plan. One family member said of the care their relative received, "the carer provides what she needs as agreed in her care plan."

People were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider had an adult safeguarding policy and a whistle-blowing policy in place which the staff we spoke to were familiar with. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew the different types and signs of abuse.

Staff told us they felt supported by management. We found that staff had regular supervision meetings during which their training and professional development was discussed. We saw evidence the provider had recently arranged training for staff on subjects relevant to their roles.

We found the provider had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided. People using the service, their families and staff were able to give their views in a variety of ways on the care being delivered and this was acted on by the provider.

28 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People were involved in planning their care, and people's care plans were tailored to meet their particular needs and preferences. People were generally happy with the way in which care was delivered. One person using the service said of a staff member, "this is the best carer I've had." However, we found that the provider did not have a process in place to regularly review people's care needs or care plans. Staff did not have access to care plans in people's homes once they started to deliver care.

We found that risk assessments were inadequate because they did not identify risks or say how they should be managed or reviewed. We were concerned that the provider did not know about their obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard people who use the service from abuse. The provider did not arrange or provide safeguarding training for staff or require staff to undergo safeguarding training. The provider did not have a system in place to deal with safeguarding issues. We found the provider did not offer staff an appropriate induction before staff began to deliver care. Staff were not trained or provided training to assist them in delivering care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. There were no systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided or to assess and manage risk.