AS Care Limited

Updated 13 February 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

A comprehensive inspection took place on 15 and 16 January 2019 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we wanted to make sure the registered manager would be in the office. The inspection team consisted of an inspector, a specialist advisor in governance and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including statutory notifications and requested feedback from other stakeholders. These included Healthwatch England, the local authority safeguarding and commissioning team. Healthwatch England is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We visited the office location to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review records. On the first day of our inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the assistant manager, the quality officer, a senior coordinator, the training co-ordinator and two experienced staff members and five staff members who were currently completing their induction. On day two of our inspection we spoke with 29 people who used the service, four relatives of people who used the service and six staff members on the telephone to obtain their views of the service.

As part of the inspection we looked at five people’s support plans in detail and a further seven support plans for specific information. We inspected staff recruitment records, supervision, appraisal and training documents. We reviewed records that related to the management of the service, which included quality assurance information.

Updated 13 February 2019

Kestrel House is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing care and support to 181 people.

At our last inspection in May 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection on 15 and 16 January 2019 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.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. We received mixed views from people and relatives about visit times. The registered manager told us there was a system in place to monitor, respond and reduce the risk of late calls. They said, in future, they would ensure clearer understanding and expectations of call times would be discussed at the person’s assessment stage. Recruitment processes and procedures were robust. Staff received appropriate induction, training and supervision to provide safe and effective care.

Medicines were managed safely. People’s nutritional and healthcare needs were met. People told us staff were caring and kind. Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and encouraged them to remain independent. Staff had a good understanding of what care and support people might need as they were approaching the end of their life.

Staff understood how to keep people safe from harm. Processes were in place to keep people safe and risks associated with people’s care and support needs had been assessed. Staff had access to a plentiful supply of gloves and aprons to support good infection control management.

Choices were respected and staff encouraged people to retain their independence. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

It was evident from our discussions with staff they had a good knowledge of people’s care and support needs. The new support plans were detailed and person centred.

Staff said they felt supported by the office based staff and the registered manager. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, understand the experiences of people who used the service and identify any concerns. The registered manager worked in partnership with other organisations to support people’s needs. People and relatives knew how to make a complaint and these were managed appropriately and outcomes actioned.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.