Ace Care 4 U Limited received a Good rating across all five key questions following an announced inspection on 3 August 2015. The service demonstrated safe, person-centred care with strong staff support systems, effective governance and highly positive feedback from people and their relatives.
Strengths
· People and relatives consistently praised support workers as kind, caring, trustworthy and gentle, with strong positive relationships developed through regular, consistent staffing.
· Robust safeguarding awareness among support workers, with clear understanding of reporting responsibilities and prompt action taken on concerns.
· Safe recruitment checks in place including DBS, references, employment history and proof of ID.
· Electronic monitoring system introduced to alert management of late or missed calls, with travel time allocated between visits.
· Medicine administration supported safely with observational competency assessments and regular auditing by the quality service manager.
Ace Care 4 U Limited was rated Good across all five key questions at its February 2020 inspection, maintaining its previous Good rating from 2017. The service demonstrated safe, personalised care with strong leadership, effective governance systems and a positive, open culture.
Concerns (1)
minorCommunication with families: “Several people told us carers often spoke in their own language when writing notes up.”
Strengths
· People felt safe and staff demonstrated clear understanding of safeguarding responsibilities
· Comprehensive risk assessments in place including personal evacuation plans and environmental safety checks
· Medicines administered safely with annual competency assessments and audits in place
· Staff described as caring, respectful and flexible by people and their relatives
· Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and co-signed by people using the service
Ace Care 4 U Limited received a Good rating across all five key questions at its unannounced inspection on 13 July 2017, with 120 people receiving personal care in their own homes. Minor issues around late visits, a dual-staff attendance lapse, office phone accessibility, and isolated staff conduct concerns were identified but had been or were being resolved.
Concerns (4)
minorPerson-centred care: “One relative told us they had helped a care worker support their relation with their mobility when a second member of staff was not present.”
minorMissed or late visits: “Some people mentioned occasions when their calls had started late or finished early, but this had now been resolved.”
minorCommunication with families: “Some people did refer to having difficulty in contacting the office by phone.”
minorStaff competency: “Some people mentioned a few situations where staff had not been as respectful as they would have wished, such as a care worker using their mobile phone during a visit.”
Strengths
· Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm.
· Sufficient staff employed and appropriate recruitment checks undertaken before commencement of employment.
· People were supported to receive their medicines safely with records kept to evidence this.
· Staff received induction, ongoing training and opportunities to review their development needs; training matrix showed staff were up to date.
· Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles were applied where required.