Kosicare Ltd

At our last inspection of the service in July 2018 we were not able to rate the service because only one person was being provided support and we did not have sufficient evidence of consistent good practice over time. However, we found no information or evidence at that time to demonstrate any serious risks or concerns about the service and the care provided.

Since the last inspection the service has moved location to a new address but remains based in London Borough of Croydon. This inspection took place on 21 January 2019. At the time of this inspection four people were using the service. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

People received care and support from the service that had been planned and agreed with them. People’s choices for how support was provided were respected and staff delivered this in line with their wishes.

Staff supporting people, understood their needs and how these should be met. They encouraged people to be involved in aspects of their personal care to promote their independence. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity and privacy when providing support.

Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. Records maintained by staff after each scheduled visit helped to keep everyone involved in people’s care informed and up to date about the support provided to people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s healthcare needs and how they should be supported with these in a timely and appropriate way. Staff ensured people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff remained aware of possible signs of abuse and how to report their concerns about people’s safety to the appropriate persons and agencies. Staff understood the risks posed to people and followed guidance about how these should be minimised to keep people safe from injury or harm. Staff followed good practice to ensure risks were minimised from poor hygiene and cleanliness when providing personal care and when preparing and handling food.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff continued to receive relevant training to help them meet peoples’ needs and were supported by the registered manager to continuously improve in their role to help them provide effective support to people.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and supported people in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review the quality of service and to deal with any complaints made about the service. Records relating to people, staff and to the management of the service were accurate and up to date.

The service continued to have a registered manager in post. The registered manager was aware of their registration responsibilities particularly with regards to submission of statutory notifications about key events that occurred at the service.

The provider worked in partnership with local authorities and organisations funding people’s care, so they were kept up to date and well informed about people’s care and support needs. The provider was building relationships with local authority commissioning teams to raise the profile of the service and in this way hoped to grow the business further.

The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 September 2017. This was their first comprehensive inspection since registration.

A registered manager was 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.

Processes were followed to safeguard people from harm and individual risk assessments were completed. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment practices were in place. Infection control procedures were adhered to.

Staff received ongoing training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to undertake their duties. Staff liaised with community healthcare professionals to ensure the person’s health and welfare needs were assessed and met. Staff adhered to the principles in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff provided the person with any support they required with meals and ensured there was access to drinks.

There was consistency in the staff supporting the person and this enabled staff to build close working relationships with them. Staff had gathered information about those people important to the person. Staff involved the person using the service as much as possible in their care and took their views into account when making decisions. Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

Detailed care plans were developed informing staff about what support the person required at each visit and how this was to be delivered. Daily records were maintained about the support provided and these showed the person was supported in line with their care plan. A complaints process was in place and information was available in the service user information guide about how to make a complaint and how to escalate concerns if required.

Staff felt well supported by the manager and felt there was clear management and leadership at the service. The staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager undertook regular spot checks to review the quality of care delivery and there were procedures for obtaining feedback from the person using the service and/or their relatives.