Background to this inspection
Updated
24 April 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This announced inspection took place on 16 March 2018.
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure the registered manager would be in.
The inspection was completed by an inspector and an expert-by-experience who made telephone calls to people and their relatives. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service and contacted the local commissioners and Healthwatch in order to get their perspective of the quality of care provided. We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Letters were sent to people using the service to inform them of the inspection.
We spoke to 15 people and four relatives over the phone. We reviewed feedback from thank you notes and emails from eight relatives. We spoke to the registered manager and telephoned two care staff.
We reviewed five care records, six staff files, supervision and appraisal records, staff satisfaction surveys, complaints folder, incidents and accident folder, policies and a training matrix.
Updated
24 April 2018
This announced inspection took place on 16 March 2018. At our previous inspection we rated the service “Good". At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the same rating and the service continued to meet all the fundamental standards of quality and safety. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection is written in a shorter format because of our overall rating of the service has not changed.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of our visit there were 38 people using the service mainly in London borough of Redbridge and in Essex.
Not everyone using Jewish Care East London receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager. 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.
People told us they felt safe and trusted staff that looked after them. They told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and that they were informed if staff were running late.
Risk assessments for people and their environment were in place and reviewed regularly. These included fire, mobility, falls and medicines.
Medicines were managed safely by staff that had been assessed as competent at handling and medicines.
Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedures in place and were able to explain how they would recognise and report abuse.
Recruitment methods continued to be robust with all the necessary checks completed before staff started their jobs.
People were supported by staff that had undergone the necessary training, supervision and appraisal. Staff were aware of the mental capacity act and how they applied it their daily role.
Staff were aware of people’s cultural specific nutritional needs. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Where malnutrition was detected it was referred to other healthcare professionals for advice and monitoring.
People were cared for by staff who were polite and caring. They told us staff respected their privacy and wishes. Staff and records confirmed that people were supported to engage in meaningful activities to reduce social isolation.
Care plans were person centred and included people’s preferences and aspirations. They were reviewed regularly with people and their relatives.
There was a clear complaints policy which was understood by people and staff. Complaints were acknowledged and investigated in a timely manner.
People and their relatives thought the service was well- managed. There were effective systems in place to ensure the quality of care delivered was monitored.
Further information can be found in the detailed findings in the full report.