Archived: Astha Limited

Updated 10 April 2020

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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector 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.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

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.

The registered manager was unavailable on the day of our inspection but we were supported by the office manager.

Notice of inspection

Our inspection was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice because we needed to be sure there would be someone available in the office to support the inspection. Inspection activity started on 20 February 2020 and ended on 16 March 2020.

What we did before the inspection

Before the inspection, we reviewed relevant information that we had about the service including any notifications of incidents affecting the safety and wellbeing of people. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We also checked the last inspection report.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection

We spoke with the office manager, an operations manager, a recruitment manager and four care staff. We spoke with five people and six relatives by telephone to obtain their feedback about the service.

We reviewed documents and records that related to people’s care and the management of the service. We reviewed seven care plans and five staff recruitment files. We also looked at staff training records, audits, rotas, complaint and incident records.

After the inspection

We met with the registered manager and continued to seek further evidence and clarification from them, which we have included in the report. We requested feedback from social care professionals.

Updated 10 April 2020

About the service

Astha Limited is a domiciliary care agency based in Ilford, Essex. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, the service provided personal care to 34 people. 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.

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

People and relatives told us the service was safe. There were procedures to protect people from abuse. Risks to people's health were identified. However, risk management plans were not always completed to ensure staff understood how to reduce risks. We have made a recommendation in this area.

People's medicines were managed safely. Audits and spot checks took place to ensure staff followed correct medicine procedures. Accidents and incidents in the service were reviewed to prevent reoccurrence. Staff followed safe practices to prevent and control infections. Staff were recruited safely and their backgrounds were checked before they started working for the service.

Staff were supported with training and development. However, there were delays with the training programme which meant some staff had not received training when required. The management of staff supervisions was not always effective because there was not a handover system in place between senior staff responsible for carrying out supervisions.

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. People were supported with maintaining their health and nutrition. The service worked with health care professionals, to ensure people's health needs were met.

Staff were respectful and caring towards people. Staff understood the importance of promoting equality and diversity. People were encouraged to maintain their independence. People's care plans were personalised. Staff communicated with people appropriately, according to their communication needs.

People knew how to make complaints about the service. Complaints were investigated by the registered manager.

Staff felt supported by the management team. Quality assurance systems included audits of records and obtaining feedback from people and relatives. The registered manager was committed to making continual improvements to the service.

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 13 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.