GA24Care improved from Requires Improvement to Good following a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led domains, having resolved a prior breach of regulation 19 regarding recruitment. The service demonstrated safe practices, strong leadership, and person-centred care, with minor concerns around occasional late visits being actively addressed.
Concerns (2)
minorMissed or late visits: “People and their relatives spoke positively about the care workers that supported them. They did say that there had been some concerns in respect of late visits, which the provider was addressing.”
minorCommunication with families: “People were overall satisfied with the care workers that were supporting them but did tell us that on occasions staff were late and they did not always know who was supporting them.”
Strengths
· Safe recruitment practices restored following previous breach of regulation 19, including DBS checks and overseas sponsorship licence.
· Medicines managed safely with electronic records, real-time alerts to management, and competency-assessed staff.
· Consistent team of staff with strong person-centred approach; positive feedback from people, relatives, and professionals.
· Six team leaders providing regular supervision and spot checks, with weekly manager meetings for oversight.
· Provider investing in vocational health and social care courses and champion roles to build staff skills.
This first inspection of GA24Care found a breach of Regulation 19 due to inadequate recruitment checks including missing DBS checks and references, alongside generic risk assessments and weak governance. Care delivery was rated Good for effective, caring and responsive, with positive feedback from people, relatives and professionals about safe medicines management and compassionate, person-centred support.
Concerns (8)
criticalStaff competency: “new staff had not been through a robust recruitment process. Not all staff had completed their application forms with their full employment history”
criticalSafeguarding: “Two members of staff did not have a disclosure and barring disclosure that had been completed by the provider”
moderateGovernance: “their quality checks had not identified shortfalls in ensuring recruitment checks had been completed and that care plans and risk assessments needed more person-centred information”
moderateCare planning: “Risk assessments were generic and needed to reflect the needs of the person.”
moderateIncident learning: “The registered manager had not reported an incident of an alleged theft in January 2022... After the site visit this was notified to us retrospectively.”
minorPerson-centred care: “Some of the care plans we saw would benefit from additional information such as people's life history, hobbies and interests.”
minorInfection control: “The provider had policies and procedures relating to the pandemic. However, this had not been reviewed since December 2021 and government guidance had changed.”
minorCommunication with families: “Two people raised concerns about their care workers understanding of the English language and the difficulties they had experienced with communication.”
Strengths
· Medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed, with electronic records and real-time alerts.
· People and relatives felt safe and spoke positively about staff kindness and respect.
· Care workers received comprehensive induction based on the Care Certificate with combined face-to-face and online training.
· Senior management team were actively involved in delivering care and knew people well.
· Service worked responsively with health and social care professionals, receiving positive feedback.
Quality-Statement breakdown (23)
safe: Staffing and recruitmentRequires improvement
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementNot rated
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseNot rated
safe: Using medicines safelyNot rated
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionNot rated
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongNot rated
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawNot rated
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experience
Not rated
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietNot rated
effective: Staff working with other agencies; supporting people to access healthcare servicesNot rated
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceNot rated
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityNot rated
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careNot rated
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceNot rated
responsive: Planning personalised care to meet people's needs and preferencesNot rated
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsNot rated
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsNot rated
responsive: End of life care and supportNot rated
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsRequires improvement
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringNot rated
well-led: How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candourNot rated
well-led: Continuous learning and improving care; engaging and involving people, public and staffNot rated
well-led: Working in partnership with othersNot rated