We carried out a review of the data available to us about R&S Medical & Allied 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 R&S Medical & Allied Services Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Some people using the service receive support with tasks including shopping and house work not the regulated activity personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. We also take into account any wider social care provided. R&S Medical & Allied Services Limited also provides personal care for children but at the time of the inspection there were no children receiving a service. There were thirteen people using the service at the time of the inspection.
At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People using the service and their relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care and support that people received. People received consistency of care from staff who they knew.
People using the service told us that staff treated them with respect and they felt safe when staff supported them with their care and other tasks. They told us that staff were reliable, respected their privacy and understood their needs.
Arrangements were in place to keep people safe. Staff knew how to identify abuse and understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people and reporting all concerns.
Risks to people’s safety were identified and monitored.
Arrangements were in place to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed.
Appropriate checks were carried out before staff started to work to make sure they were suitable to work with people using the service. The provider ensured that there were enough staff in place with the right skills mix to meet people's needs.
People and where applicable their relatives, were fully involved in making decisions about people’s care. Staff respected the choices people made and supported people’s independence. Staff understood the importance of obtaining people’s agreement before supporting them with personal care and other tasks.
Staff received training which was relevant to their role. They received ongoing support from the registered manager and office manager.
People’s care plans included information about the care people needed and wanted, so staff had the necessary information to effectively meet each person’s individual needs.
The service was flexible and responsive, so changes in people’s needs and preferences were met.
Staff had a good understanding about people’s equality and diversity needs and knew the importance of respecting people’s differences and human rights.
The service liaised with healthcare and social care professionals to make sure people’s needs were met.
People, their relatives and care staff told us they thought the service was well run and would recommend it.
There were systems in place to check, monitor and develop the service. We found some quality monitoring records could be developed to better show the effectiveness of the quality checks that the service carried out. Action to address this was commenced by the registered manager and the office manager during the inspection.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 200 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’ The registered manager was on duty on the day of our inspection and we also met with the care coordinator, administrator and care workers.
People told us they felt safe with the support they received from the provider. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to inform people who used the service and staff how to report potential or suspected abuse. Staff understood what constituted abuse and were aware of steps to take to protect people.
People had risk assessments and risk management plans to reduce the likelihood of harm. There were safe recruitment procedures in place to help protect people from the risks of being cared for by staff assessed to be unfit or unsuitable.
Staff had received training in relevant areas of their work. This training enabled staff to support people effectively.
Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us and we saw from their records they were involved in making decisions about their care and support and their consent was sought and documented.
People were supported to eat and drink in a safe manner. Their support plans included an assessment of their nutrition and hydration needs.
People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood the need to protect people’s privacy and dignity.
The provider encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and responded to them in a timely manner. People knew who to contact if they had a concern and the office contact details were included in the care package held in people’s homes.
Staff gave positive feedback about the management of the service. They told us the registered manager was approachable and fully engaged with providing good quality care for people who used the service.
The management encouraged a positive and open culture by being supportive to staff and making themselves approachable to staff and people receiving care.
The provider had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service. People receiving care were asked for their opinions and action plans developed as appropriate.
During our inspection on 25 November 2013, we found that the provider did not operate effective recruitment procedures. The provider submitted an action plan stating what they would do to meet this standard. At our visit on 11 September 2014, we checked whether the provider had carried out the actions and whether the standard was now being met.
We found that the provider had undertaken appropriate checks before staff started work. The provider had employed a compliance officer whose role was to ensure that all staff were fully compliant with their recruitment procedure.
We used telephone interviews with people and their carers, to gain their views about the service. Comments from people who used the service and their carers included 'They go out of the way to help,' 'They are reliable,' and 'They know what they are doing.'
We saw that care was planned and delivered in ways that met people's needs, and that safety and welfare of people who used the service were assessed and planned for. People confirmed that staff respected their privacy and understood their needs.
People knew how to contact the agency and had received information about the services that it provided. People told us that they provided feedback about the service that they received. Monitoring visits had been carried out by the agency to check that people were being provided with the service that they needed and wanted.
People who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support that they received, and confirmed that staff were skilled, approachable, trustworthy and reliable.
Recruitment and selection processes and checks were carried out. However, references were not available for all staff.