Little Angels Home Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed 6 quality statements in the effective. During this assessment, we found a lack of recording of mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions and inconsistency in how best practice guidance was applied. We received positive feedback regarding staff, and people said staff respected their choices and asked for consent. Staff worked well together to meet the needs of people.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us care needs were assessed before they started at the service.

The nominated individual and manager told us the process they followed when assessing a new referral; this included reviewing people's needs and preferences and matching these with staff. The nominated individual told us they provided care to all new people using the service during the first 2 weeks to ensure that all risks were well known and people's care needs were met and recorded.

There were processes in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed before they started at the service, and these were being followed. This ensured there were plans in place to safely meet people’s needs.

People and relatives told us care received had a positive impact on their lives.

Managers were not always following best practice guidance.

During this inspection, we found inconsistency in how the provider was delivering evidence-based care. We found the provider was not always following best practice guidance in relation to the management of medication, such as contemporaneous record keeping and staff completing medication competency assessments. The provider was also not following best practice guidance in relation to documenting that staff had received the appropriate training and supervision to carry on their jobs. However, we did not find evidence of this having a negative impact on the care people were receiving.

Feedback we received showed staff worked well together as well as with other healthcare professionals supporting people. Comments included, "The carers have excellent moving and handling skills and [name of nominated individual] works with the outside team to make sure that they move [person] how is best for her and also to ensure they don’t suffer any injuries.”

Staff told us they worked well together to meet the needs of people. Staff knew how to report concerns about people's health if this deteriorated or how to deal with emergencies.

Feedback we received from stakeholders about the service did not raise any concerns. In our review of people's care plans and conversations with management, we were assured the service was in regular contact with relevant healthcare professionals to meet the needs of people.

The nominated individual was involved in delivering care and provided regular support and guidance to staff. Staff worked well together as a team and it was easy to escalate any concerns to the nominated individual.

Feedback received indicated people's lives were improved by the care received. Comments included, "My [relative] is very reluctant to have carers as [they are] so independent and the carers themselves have realised this and they know how to make it more acceptable for [person] by really including [them] in how and what they do for [person]” and "We have used the service for a year now and it works very well for us”.

Staff supported people to have healthier lives.

People's care was assessed and planned to ensure their needs were met.

Staff monitored people's health and ensured their needs were appropriately met. Comments from people and relatives included, "[Person] has had a pressure ulcer for a long time now but since [nominated individual] and her team took over it has finally started to heal; this is because [person] is getting good care."

Staff monitored people's health and ensure their needs were appropriately met. Staff knew how to escalate any concerns linked to people's care.

People's care was reviewed and updated to ensure people’s needs were met.

People and relatives told us staff asked for consent before providing care.

The nominated individual and manager had not identified in their audits that this area required further work. Although, we did not find any evidence of care provided to people not being in their best interests, we found improvements were required in ensuring mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were well documented.

During this assessment, we found a lack of recording of mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions. The provider was not always following their own policies and procedures in relation to this area. Although, we did not find any evidence of care provided to people not being in their best interests. No concerns were shared by people or relatives in relation to consent.