Archived: Entirety LLP

Updated 5 December 2018

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

This inspection was announced and took place on 7 November 2018. We gave the provider two weeks’ notice of the inspection because senior staff are sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that senior staff would be available to speak with us on the day of our inspection. The inspection was carried out by a single inspector.

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. 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. We sent out questionnaires to staff involved in people’s care and asked them for their feedback about the service. Their responses were analysed to provide us with a view about what they thought about the service. We also looked at statutory notifications submitted by the provider. Statutory notifications contain information providers are required to send us about significant events that take place within services.

During the inspection we visited the provider’s office and spoke to the registered manager. We looked at the records of two people using the service and two staff records. We also looked at other records relating to the management of the service.

People using the service had complex communication needs so could not share with us their view of the service. After the inspection we spoke to the relatives and representatives of three people using the service and asked them for feedback and their experiences of the care and support provided to people. The registered manager also sent us additional information after the inspection that we had requested. This included the service’s policies for safeguarding adults, lone working and dealing with complaints as well as the current staff rota.

Updated 5 December 2018

Entirety LLP is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, that is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do this, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection four people were receiving this service.

At our last inspection of the service in March 2016 we rated the service ‘Good’. The service had been operating at that time at a location based in London Borough of Croydon. In August 2016 the service moved to its current location based in the London Borough of Sutton. The rating for the service was not affected by this change.

This inspection took place on 7 November 2018. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going 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 continued to provide care and support that was personalised and tailored to people’s needs. People received support that had been planned and agreed with them. Their choices for how support was provided were respected and staff delivered this in line with people’s wishes.

Staff knew people well, understood their needs and how these should be met. Staff supported people to take part in a wide range of activities or pursue interests that were important to them. They encouraged people to be involved in all aspects of their care and support to promote their independence. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity and privacy when providing support.

Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. Staff communicated well with others involved in people’s care so that they were well informed about people’s health and wellbeing, particularly if there were concerns about this. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s healthcare needs and how they should be supported with these in a timely and appropriate way. People received their prescribed medicines as required.

Staff were trained to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns about people to the appropriate person and agencies. Staff understood the risks posed to people and followed current guidance about how these should be minimised to keep people safe from injury or harm. People were safe because staff followed good practice to ensure risks were minimised from poor hygiene and cleanliness.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The provider maintained recruitment and selection processes and carried out appropriate checks to verify staff's suitability to support people. Staff received relevant training and had work objectives that were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support. These were monitored and reviewed through regular supervision and staff team meetings.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and supported people in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Relatives and representatives of people were satisfied with the care and support provided. They and staff spoke positively about managers and described them as accessible and supportive. The provider had aims and standards for the service and communicated to people what they should expect from staff in terms of quality of care.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review the quality of service and to deal with any complaints made about the service. Records relating to people, staff and to the management of the service were up to date and well maintained.

The service continued to have a registered manager in post. The registered manager was aware of their registration responsibilities particularly with regards to submission of statutory notifications about key events that occurred at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.