Archived: Arion Care Ltd

At the time of our inspection we were told that a service was being provided to 19 people. We spoke with six people who received personal care and with the relatives of two people. We spoke with the manager of the service and with four care staff. Overall we found that the provider had made improvements. However, we did find that improvements were needed to the arrangements to deal with emergencies.

People and their relatives were happy with the support being delivered and told us that they usually had the same care staff who arrived when they expected them to. One person told us, 'The staff are all polite and caring.' Another person told us, 'Most of the staff seem well trained.'

We found that people were protected and safe from abuse. Staff recruitment records showed that new staff had been checked to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The provider had systems in place for checking the quality of the service.

At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.

We were informed that a service was being provided to 29 people. Following our visit, we spoke with three members of staff, four people who used the service and the relatives of three people.

Whilst most people told us they were happy with the care and support they received there were some mixed views shared with us. One person when asked if they were satisfied replied 'Yes and no' but did not wish to elaborate further. Another person told us that some of their calls had been missed by the agency. Other people we spoke with were very satisfied with the service. One person told us, 'The care so far has been very good.'

It was not evident that care was always planned in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare and people were not protected from the risk of abuse.

We were unable to evidence that the agency had followed robust recruitment procedures before staff started working with people or that they had received all the training they needed.

The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

We were unable to evidence that the agency had followed robust recruitment procedures before staff started working with people or had all the training they needed. This meant the provider could not fully demonstrate that some staff were suitable to work in an environment where they had direct contact with vulnerable people.

Following our visit, we spoke with three people who used the service and the relatives of two people using the service. All of the people we spoke with confirmed they were happy and had no concerns or complaints about the agency.