Raynet Recruitment Agency Ltd

About the service

Raynet Recruitment Agency Ltd is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to 11 people living in their own homes at the time of the inspection.

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. Six people using the service were receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The agency provided a service that was safe for people to use and staff to work for. People received their medicine on time and as prescribed, although some improvements in medicine management recording was needed.

We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines records.

The support people received, enabled them to live safely and enjoy their lives. This was because risks to people were assessed and monitored. The agency reported, investigated and recorded accidents and incidents and safeguarding concerns. Suitable numbers of appropriately recruited and trained staff were available to meet people’s needs.

The agency understood and carried out its responsibility to ensure people or their representatives consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidance.

People and their relatives were very complimentary about the way staff provided them with care and support with attention to small details making all the difference. People’s rights to privacy, dignity and confidentiality were respected by staff. They were encouraged and supported to be independent and do the things, they could, for themselves. This promoted their self-worth and improved their quality of life. The agency provided staff who were very friendly, caring, and compassionate. They were also passionate about the people they provided a service for and the way they provided it.

People received person centred care and had individualised care plans that detailed their assessed needs, which were reviewed. People and their relatives were supported to decide how and when their needs were met. People were provided with suitable information to make their own decisions and end of life wishes were identified, if appropriate and adhered to. People’s communication needs were met. Complaints were recorded, investigated and learnt from.

The agency culture was very open, honest and positive with transparent leadership and management. Its vision and values were clearly defined, understood by staff and followed. Areas of responsibility and accountability were identified, staff understood them and were prepared to accept responsibility on the ground and report any concerns they may have to the management, in a timely way. Service quality was constantly reviewed, and the agency made real changes to continually improve the care and support people received. This was in a way that best suited people and included IT systems that enabled the agency to run smoothly and improve people’s experience of it. Audits were carried out, records kept up to date and performance shortfalls identified and acted upon except some medicine documents. The agency had well-established working partnerships that promoted a seamless service through co-operation with other healthcare professionals, people’s participation and minimised social isolation. Registration requirements were met.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

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 22 August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned pilot virtual inspection. The report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the Provider.

The pilot inspection considered the key questions of safe and well-led and provide a rating for those key questions. Only parts of the effective, caring and responsive key questions were considered, and therefore the ratings for these key questions are those awarded at the last inspection.

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.

This service is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of our visit there were five people using the service from several London boroughs.

On the day of our visit, there was 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.

People told us they felt safe. Staff demonstrated working knowledge of the safeguarding processes and how to raise a concern. There were appropriate policies and systems in place including staff attending safeguarding training in order to ensure people were protected from harm.

Medicines were managed safely by staff that had been assessed as competent. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the infection control principles and guidelines in place to prevent the spread of infection.

We saw an effective risk management and accident management process in place that ensured staff learnt from past incidents in order to improve practice.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect by staff that were polite and kind. They thought they were enough staff to meet their needs. They were aware of the complaints process and felt that any concerns raised would be taken seriously and resolved.

There were robust recruitment practices in place which ensured only staff that were suitable to work in a health and social care environment were employed. Staff were supported to develop their skills and knowledge by means of regular training, a comprehensive induction, regular supervision and staff meetings. They were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how they applied it in practice.

Care plans were person scented and outlined people’s personal preferences and wishes. They were renewed regularly together with people and those that mattered to them.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet that met their needs. They were enabled to access healthcare services in order to maintain their health.

People and their relatives thought the service was well managed. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to ensure the quality of care delivered was monitored and improved.