Archived: Angels Assisted Living Services

People and others we spoke with were very satisfied with the service being provided. Their comments included, "I'm quite happy. They've been very good with what they do." and "It's nice when you have good carers. I've nowt but good to say about them."

We found appropriate arrangements were in place to manage medicines.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff started work.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

We found that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

People and their relatives were very satisfied with the service being provided. Their comments included, "I only want the best for my mam, and I think I am getting that with Angels" and "I'm really happy. It's an excellent service." We found at the time of our inspection, care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. However, the provider had not always effectively controlled people's agreed care packages and there was a degree of instability in the staffing arrangements which could threaten the provision of care, given the small size of the organisation.

Appropriate arrangements were not in place to manage medicines.

Appropriate checks had not been carried out before staff began work, which put people at risk. There had been insufficient investment in staff training and staff had not been supported to ensure care was delivered safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others. We found that essential records were not always maintained.

We found the provider had effective recruitment procedures in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff, which helped to safeguard vulnerable people.

We saw there were thorough assessments and care plans in place, which meant clear agreements had been made with people about their support needs. We found care workers knew how to assist them and that relatives of people were very happy with the consistency and quality of care provided by the service. One said, 'It's fantastic. I've got a life now. We've had a review meeting because (my relative's) condition changes all the time. The carers come and ask me what I think about this and that.' Another said, 'They work over and above. I couldn't ask for better.'

People said they found the service was fully responsive to their relatives' needs and wishes. They praised the consistency and reliability of the service.

They felt the staff were well trained and fully understood the needs of their relatives. They commented the staff were patient and never rushed people. A typical comment from relatives was, 'They spend more time.' Another said, 'They're lovely with her. She's very fond of them.'

Because the service was relatively small, there had been reliance on verbal agreements with people who used the service, and their relatives, about the care and support to be provided. As a consequence, written assessment and care planning had not been carried out. This meant the staff relied on verbal exchange of information. We have told the provider action is needed to remedy this.

People had confidence in the service and the staff. The provider had taken appropriate steps to train staff about protecting people from abuse. However, they had not implemented a sufficiently robust recruitment process, which meant people could have been put at risk.