Cherish UK Ltd

Cherish UK is a domiciliary care agency situated on Amy Johnson Way business park in Blackpool. The agency covers a wide range of dependency needs including adults and children, people with a learning disability, people with mental health support needs and younger adults with a physical disability.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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 and what we found

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Right Support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

This service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture. We visited three people who were able to access health and social care community based facilities. With help from staff, they maintained contact with and visited their loved ones. Staff had good knowledge of people's personalities and abilities. Staff were aware of people's likes, wishes and wants and this was reflected in their home environments. We observed people were confident in sharing their views and opinions with staff.

Safe recruitment practices were consistently documented. Safeguarding procedures were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse by staff who understood and were trained on how to recognise and respond to concerns. Infection control systems and audits continued to ensure a clean environment for people. Staff had access to suitable amounts of appropriate personal protective equipment to minimise the spread of infection. Not all staff were participating in regular testing for the COVID-19 virus.

The management team were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They worked in partnership with a variety of agencies to ensure people's health and social needs were met. They provided additional support to promote people’s physical and mental health. The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. This ensured the service continued to be monitored and improve.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 12 October 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

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.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

We spoke with 12 people supported by the service and five family members. They told us staff who visited them were polite, friendly and caring. They told us they received patient and safe care and they liked the staff who supported them. Comments received included, “I get the same group of carers and I feel safe with them. We do things together.” And, “The staff who visit me are all very nice and helpful.”

We visited one supported living house where four people lived. We saw they were well cared for by caring and conscientious staff. Staff spoken with had a good understanding of people’s care needs.

The service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

During this inspection people supported by the service told us staff were usually reliable. However four people expressed concern about their carers arriving late and not always knowing who they would be. We discussed this with registered manager who agreed to review the services procedures.

Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

We found staff had been appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People receiving care in the community told us they received their medicines at the times they needed them. Medication procedures at the supported living house we visited were found to be safe.

The service had safe infection control procedures in place and staff had received infection control training. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People’s care and support was planned with them. People told us they had been consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered.

Staff supported people in the community to have a nutritious dietary and fluid intake. Assistance was provided in preparation of food and drinks as people needed. People who lived at the supported living house were appropriately supported with their food and fluid intake.

People were supported to have access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met.

People told us staff were caring towards them. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of high standards of care to give people meaningful lives.

The service had information with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by people they supported.

People told us the staff who visited them treated them with respect and dignity.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The service had kept a record of complaints received and these had been responded to in a timely manner.

The service used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included daily service meetings, quality assurance visits, satisfaction surveys, spot checks, and care reviews. Where people had raised concerns about their visits these had been listened to and responded to appropriately.

The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and their rights and dignity was respected. They told us they were receiving safe and appropriate care which was meeting their needs. We found recruitment practices were safe and thorough. This ensured people working for the agency were fit to work with vulnerable people.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs had been assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary needs had been identified where required. People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people being supported by the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'The staff who support my husband are excellent. Always on time and deliver his care with dignity'. 'I have the same group of girls visiting me. I so look forward to their visits they are lovely caring people'.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They told us they hadn't had cause to raise a complaint with the agency but were confident any concerns raised would be listened to and acted upon. We looked at the services complaints log and noted all concerns raised with them were being responded to appropriately. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving. Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. People we spoke with said they received a good quality service at all times.