We carried out a review of the data available to us about 24/7 Assured Care Services Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 24/7 Assured Care Services Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
24/7 Assured Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency which provides care to people in their homes. At the time of our inspection the service provided some form of support to a total of 38 people, of which 9 people received personal care support. The Care Quality Commission (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:
People who received care from the service told us they were well supported by care workers. This was confirmed by relatives we spoke with. They told us people were safe when they were cared for by care workers. There were systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding people. Safe recruitment procedures were in place.
Our previous inspection found the monitoring system for punctuality and attendance was ineffective. However, during this focused inspection we observed that the service had implemented an electronic monitoring system. This enabled the registered manager to continuously monitor staff punctuality and attendance. Feedback obtained indicated that there were no issues with care worker’s punctuality and attendance.
Appropriate risk assessments were in place and covered areas such as the environment, mobility, seizures and diabetes.
Our previous inspection found people did not always receive personalised care. Care plans failed to include detailed guidance about people’s needs and the support they required. During this focused inspection we found the service had taken appropriate action to address this and had implemented new format care plans. These were person-centred and included clear information about what people’s needs were and what support they required.
Medicines were managed safely. Administration of medicines were recorded electronically.
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and felt able to raise concerns and were confident that these would be addressed. Procedures were in place to respond to complaints.
Our previous inspection found that there were some instances where the service failed to effectively check various aspects of the service and we found a breach of regulation. During this focused inspection, we observed that the service had made improvements and had an effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service and enable learning and improvement.
More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 13 May 2019).
Why we inspected
We previously carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service in February 2019. One breach of legal requirement was found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve governance.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Responsive and Well-led.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for the key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
24/7 Assured Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency which provides care to people in their homes. There were 20 people using the service at the time of our inspection. However, 16 people did not receive support with personal care. CQC does not regulate this part of the service. Therefore, our inspection only focussed on the four people receiving personal care. The four people receiving personal care were older adults (over 65 years of age), although some younger adults with physical disabilities received a service. They all lived within the London Borough of Brent and had their service commissioned by the local authority.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service was not always well-led. There were some systems and processes to monitor the quality of care. However, we found the monitoring system for late or missed calls to be ineffective. We noted no late or missed calls had been recorded even though we had been notified by people of recent occurrences.
People did not always receive personalised care. Their needs had been assessed by the service prior to receiving services. Care plans included guidance about meeting these needs. However, we found this to be not detailed. Furthermore, some people had missed calls, which meant they may not have received care that met their needs.
People felt safe in the care they received from care workers. There were safeguarding systems and processes to support care workers to protect people from avoidable harm. Risk assessments were in place, with guidance for care workers on how to reduce risks.
Safe recruitment procedures were now in place. This ensured all pre-employment requirements were completed before new staff were appointed and commenced their employment.
The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 were met. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People, or where necessary, their relatives had signed their plans to show that they consented to the care provided by the service.
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and felt able to raise concerns and were confident that these would be addressed.
Care workers had received a range of training and support to enable them to carry out their role safely. People told us they received the right care and support from care workers who were well trained and competent at what they did.
Records relating to consent for care were accurately completed and people told us they were always offered choice and control over the care they received.
People were very positive about the staff and told us that their privacy and dignity was promoted.
More information is in the full report.
We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to good governance. Details of action we have asked the provider to take can be found at the end of this report. We also made two recommendations.
Rating at last inspection:
This was the service’s first inspection since registering with CQC.
Follow up:
We have asked the provider to send us an action plan telling us what steps they are to take to make the improvements needed. We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the service to ensure good quality is provided to people. We will return to re-inspect in line with our inspection timescales for Requires Improvement services.
People who used the service had been assessed and their care needs were recorded. Appropriate risk assessments had been carried out. Care plans were prepared with the involvement of people who used the service and their representatives. The minutes of reviews carried out indicated that care staff were able to meet the needs of people who used the service.
The agency had an appropriate recruitment procedure and policy. There was evidence that staff had been carefully recruited. The recruitment records contained references, criminal records disclosures, evidence of identity and other essential documentation.
The agency had a policy and procedure for safeguarding adults. Care staff we spoke with could provide examples of what constituted abuse and knew how to respond to allegations or incidents of abuse. Relatives of people spoke highly of their care staff and were satisfied with the quality of care provided.
As part of our review we visited the agency and we conducted telephone interviews with care workers, and a relative of a person using the service (the person using the service was unable to talk with us).
We were told by the manager that people knew how to contact the agency and had received information about the service it provided. People confirmed that they felt listened to and the agency asked them for feedback about the service. They told us that they were informed about changes to the service. The manager confirmed that she welcomed all feedback about the service provided to people.
We were informed that the registered manager was approachable and responded promptly and appropriately to issues that she was told about.
People informed us they were happy with the care and support their relatives received and felt involved in decisions about their care, and staff were skilled, reliable and respectful. They told us regular care workers provided the care and support people using the service needed.
A relative of a person using the service told us that they felt that the person using the service was safe and their privacy and dignity respected.
The manager told us about the systems that were in place to ensure that the quality of the service was monitored closely and improvements made as and when they were needed.
Staff told us they enjoyed their job. They confirmed they felt well supported and received appropriate training to ensure they could carry out their role and responsibilities in caring and supporting people using the service.