Elite Careplus Ltd - Bromley

Updated 18 July 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. However, we could not provide a rating for the service because the service was not supporting a sufficient number of people for us to gather enough evidence to make a judgement on their experiences of the care they received.

This inspection took place on 1 June 2018 and was conducted by one inspector. Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including details of notifications submitted by the provider. A notification is information about important events that the provider is required to send us by law.

The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to the inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to provide some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We also contacted the local authority to seek their feedback on their involvement with the service. We used this information to help inform our inspection planning.

During the inspection we visited the office location and one person in their home. We also spoke with one member of staff and the registered manager, and looked at a range of records including one person’s care plan, two staff recruitment files, staff training and supervision records, and other records related to the management of the service.

Updated 18 July 2018

This inspection took place on 1 June 2018 and was announced. We gave the registered manager two days' notice of the inspection to ensure they would be available to meet with us. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered by CQC.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care and support to one older adult in the London Borough of Bromley. Because of this, we were unable to gather enough information about the experiences of people using the service to provide a rating against the five key questions, ‘Is the service safe?’, ‘Is the service effective?’, ‘Is the service caring?’, ‘Is the service responsive?’ and ‘Is the service well-led?’, and therefore we were unable to provide an overall rating for the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

At this inspection we found breaches of regulations because risks to people were not always safely managed, the support people received to take medicines was not always accurately recorded, and because the provider did not follow safe recruitment practices. We also found improvement was required because the provider’s quality assurance systems did not always identify issues or drive improvements, and because the provider’s policies and procedures did not always provide clear of accurate guidance for staff or the people using the service.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the action to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff worked in ways which protected people from the risk of infection. The registered manager reviewed accident and incident reports in order to identify trends and reduce the risk of repeat occurrence.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure the service was able to provide them with effective care and support. Staff received an induction when they started work and received support in their roles through training and regular supervision. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet where this was part of their assessed need. They also had access to a range of healthcare services when required to maintain good health.

Staff sought people’s consent when offering them support. 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. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. People told us they had developed positive relationships with the staff who supported them and that staff were caring in their approach.

People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment, and received support which reflected their individual needs and preferences. Staff supported people to maintain their independence. People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and expressed confidence that any issues they raised would be appropriately addressed.

The registered manager told us the service was committed to working with other agencies where required to ensure people received a good quality service. People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and their management of the service. The provider sought people’s views on the service through quality assurance checks and the feedback they received showed that people were experiencing positive outcomes from the support they received.