We carried out a review of the data available to us about Aims Homecare Limited - Leatherhead 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 Aims Homecare Limited - Leatherhead, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ People were positive about improvements that had been made by the management since our previous inspection in July 2018. Although some people still experienced issues with late calls, the overall feedback from people was now much more positive about the care and support they received.
¿ The work to bring the service up to the providers high standards was ongoing at the time of our inspection, but we saw many examples of actions that had been completed or were in the process of being introduced. Time was now needed to embed these changes to demonstrate the full positive impact to people and that they are sustainable.
¿ People were supported to keep safe because risks to their health and safety were well managed. Staff understood their responsibilities around identifying and report any concerns, for example if they suspected abuse had taken place.
¿ People received their medicines when they needed them and records management around the administration of medicines had improved since our last inspection.
¿ People received a full and comprehensive needs assessment prior to joining the service. This ensure that staff had the skills and experience to meet those needs. Staff had training and supervision to keep them up to date on best practice and identify if they needed to make any improvements to how they supported people.
¿ Staff supported people in a kind and caring way. Feedback from people was positive about the interactions they had with staff.
¿ Peoples requirements under equality and diversity were met. The registered manager and staff said that anyone would be welcomed to the service no matter their age, gender, race, sexual orientation or religion. They would be supported by staff that understood and respected their preferences.
¿ Care records were person centred and gave clear guidance to staff so they knew people as individuals and their specific care and support needs. People told us they had been involved in the development and review of these care records.
¿ People were confident that when they made a complaint this was investigated fully by the management and improvements were made as a result.
¿ Were people were supported at the end of their lives, this was done in a compassionate way. Staff liaised with healthcare professionals to ensure peoples medical needs and personal preferences were met. Families gave positive feedback about the kindness of staff when they had been supported during this most difficult time.
¿ The registered manager and provider had a clear set of values for the service and ensured staff provided care in a way that matched those values. The values were based around keeping promises, putting people first, compassion, respecting each other and providing person centred care. People told us they felt they received care in line with these values.
¿ People told us they felt the service was well managed. One person said, “Very well managed indeed, I have worked in care myself and we had other agencies before AIMS and they should all be like this.”
Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection the service was rated Requires Improvement. The report was published 13 September 2018.
Why we inspected: This inspection was part of our scheduled plan based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive care and support that meets the requirements of the health and social care regulations. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Aims Homecare Limited – Leatherhead 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. At the time of our inspection 37 people were receiving support with personal care.
There was a registered manager 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.
People were not always protected from avoidable harm and abuse as allegations of abuse had not always been escalated to the appropriate safeguarding authority. Risks to people had not been appropriately identified or addressed and the systems in place to support people with their medicines did not ensure this was managed safely. There were not enough staff and they were not deployed in a way that meant people’s needs were met; they were given impossible schedules which affected punctuality. The provider responded to incidents appropriately but had not informed CQC as required by law. Staff were recruited in a way that ensured they were suitable to work with people in a care setting. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.
People’s needs were not assessed in a comprehensive or personalised way and care plans lacked detail about how staff should meet their needs. People gave us mixed feedback about the support they received with their meals, some people said the food was not good enough to eat. Staff received the training and support they needed to perform their roles. The service worked with other health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. People were confident staff would support them to access healthcare services when they needed. The service was working in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 but care plans lacked detail on how people expressed their choices.
People did not always feel that staff treated them with kindness and compassion. When people had established relationships with regular care workers their experiences improved and an emotional bond was established. The service did not consider the impact people’s religious belief, sexual or gender identity may have on their experience of care. We have made a recommendation about supporting people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. People were treated with dignity during care.
People’s care was reviewed regularly but records did not always show they received personalised care that met their needs. People knew how to make complaints, and were confident things would change if they raised a concern. Complaints were investigated thoroughly by the provider. People were supported at the end of their lives, but there was not clear information about what this meant within the care files. We have made a recommendation about supporting people at the end of their life.
There were not effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. The provider was not always following their own policies and there was limited oversight over the quality of records. The provider was starting to introduce new systems for quality assurance. There was a clear philosophy of care, and staff described their approach in a way that matched the provider’s philosophy. People were asked for feedback about their experiences. People felt supported and valued by the registered manager and the provider recognised staff achievements.
We identified breaches of six regulations regarding person centre care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding service users from harm, staffing, good governance and notification of incidents. Full information about our regulatory response is added to reports when all appeals and representations have been completed.