Beavers [Worcester] Ltd is registered to provide personal care for people who live in their homes. At the time of our inspection 51 people were receiving personal care in their own homes.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection 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. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

This inspection took place 18 July 2018 and was announced.

People were protected from the risk of potential abuse and told us they felt safe in the company of carers because of the way carers supported and cared for them. Plans to manage people’s individual risks were assessed, and identified in a way which promoted people’s safety. There were enough carers employed to care for people and chat to them so they did not become isolated. Carers supported some people to take their medicines. Some people had requested carers just reminded them to take their medicines and this had been done.

Carers had the skills and knowledge to care for people effectively. Carers received regular training based on the needs of people using the service. Carers knew the histories and preferences of the people they were supporting and provided care in a way that meet individual people’s needs. People had been involved in making decisions about how their care was delivered daily, and through their assessments, care planning and care plan reviews.

People were encouraged to make choices about the food they ate and carers knew if they had any dietary requirements. People were supported by carers to maintain their health and well-being.

People’s consent was appropriately obtained by carers when caring for them. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and carers support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People received care from carers who took time to get to know them. People had developed good relationships with carers that were caring. Carers supported people to maintain their dignity and people were confident that carers respected their right to confidentiality.

The registered manager, carers met regularly with people to check they were receiving care in the way they wanted. People and their family members were encouraged to give feedback on the quality of the service. The registered manager made sure regular checks were completed to monitor the quality of the care. Carers were aware of and implemented the values demonstrated by the registered manager.

The inspection took place on 11 February 2016 and was announced.

The service provides personal care to people living either in their own home or the home of a family member. At the time of the inspection, approximately 80 people used the service and a registered manager was in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe with the care staff supporting them in their home. Relatives we spoke with told us they knew the staff and they had no concerns about their family member’s safety.

People received care from staff who understood their individual health needs and how to manage risks when caring for them. Where appropriate, people were supported to take their medications. The registered manager made regular checks to ensure people received their medication when supported by staff.

People received care and support from staff who were regularly supervised and their performance and ability to do the job was checked. People were supported by staff that understood their needs and knew their individual requirements. Staff could request and access training when they needed. Staff training was also reviewed and updated frequently.

People’s consent was obtained by staff. The registered manager understood the requirements of the law and had responded appropriately.

People were offered choices in the meals and drinks staff prepared for them. Staff understood people’s needs and made appropriate arrangements for them when preparing their meals.

People’s health needs were assessed regularly and care staff understood how they should care for people. Staff kept families informed about their relative’s care and where appropriate other health professionals were notified.

People liked the staff who cared for them and the regularity of staff enabled people to feel staff understood their needs. People’s privacy and dignity were respected by care staff who understood peoples individual support needs.

People understood they could call the administration office and speak to the registered manager or one of the management team if needed. When people had called they had discussed issues and concerns, which were acted upon.

People’s care was regularly checked and reviewed by the registered manager.  Where changes were requested these were responded to. 

This agency currently provided care for 63 adults in their own homes. During this inspection we spoke on the telephone with seven people who used the service and five relatives. We also spoke with three care staff and the registered manager at the agency office. We also read five care plans and looked at records.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support that they received. One person said: “I’m very impressed. I like Beavers very much.” Another person said: “They are reliable and friendly.” A relative said; “They’ve been very, very good, excellent actually.”

Consent from people had been obtained before care and support was provided. We found that proper steps had been taken to ensure that individualised care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff had been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had been undertaken that ensured they were suitable to care for vulnerable people.

The provider had systems of audit in place that enabled them to monitor the quality of the service provided and ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment. However, the provider did not have an effective complaints system for recording and handling complaints. Some people were unhappy with how complaints had been handled.

As part of this inspection we visited the agency office. We spoke on the telephone with one person who used the service, one relative and the representative for one person. In addition to this we spoke to five members of staff who provided care and support to people who used the service.

We found that people had been involved in making decisions about their care and were satisfied with the care they received from staff. People we spoke with told us they felt safe when receiving care.

Care plans had been recorded for each person. These provided information for staff who visited them and ensured their individual needs would be met.

People told us staff were competent and caring and we found that staff had received training relevant to their roles and responsibilities.

We found that the registered provider needed to make some improvements to the way they reviewed the quality of their service. Although audits were being carried out they were not done in a timely manner and there was a risk that there may be a delay in them identifying areas of poor practice and issues of concern.