Angelcare UK Limited

Updated 19 April 2019

The inspection:

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

Inspection team: The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience had experience of supporting and caring for young and older people.

Service and service type: The service provides personal care to people living in the community.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

What we did: Before this inspection we reviewed information, we held about the service. The registered manager had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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. We also reviewed notifications submitted to us by the service. Providers are required by law to notify us of certain events, such as when a person who uses the service suffers a serious injury. We took this information into account when we inspected the service.

During this inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service and eight relatives on the telephone. We spoke with eight members of staff a care coordinator, services manager and the registered manager.

We looked at six people's care records, including the medication administration records and four staff files which included recruitment checks, supervisions, appraisals and training records. We also looked at other records relating to the management of the service, such as quality assurance audits and accidents and incidents records.

Updated 19 April 2019

About the service: Angelcare uk is a family run domiciliary care service, who were providing personal care to 105 people at the time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they felt safe They said staff were good. Relatives told us they thought staff were friendly and caring. However, people and their relatives said they had received late calls and staff did not always stay for the allocated time. We discussed this with the registered manager.

We found medication records were unclear.

The care plans included risk assessments, which identified any risks associated with people’s care and had been devised to help minimise and monitor the risks without placing undue restrictions on people. However, there was little information about people’s likes, dislikes and life histories. End of life information was not always discussed or thought of during the care planning process.

People spoke fondly of the registered manager. There were not always effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. The registered manager was working on these areas.

There was a recruitment system in place that helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Support workers had a clear understanding of safeguarding people and they knew how to act appropriately to safeguard people from abuse.

There was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal for staff to support people using the service with their assessed needs.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their activities and meals.

There was a clear complaints process in place and copies of this were available in people’s homes.

Rating at last inspection: Good (published 16 September 2016). The rating at this inspection has gone down to Requires Improvement.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service. We plan to compete a further inspection in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated requires improvement.

We made recommendations to the service.

For more details, please see the full report, which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk