About the service: City Care Agency Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older people and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection they were supporting eight people in the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham. The provider changed the name of the service during the inspection process. It was previously known as Daallo Care Services.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ Relatives spoke positively about staff supporting their family members and told us they were kind, caring and patient and treated them with dignity and respect.

¿ People were able to communicate with staff in their own language which helped to keep them fully involved with the service.

¿ Relatives felt listened to and were positive about the person-centred service their family members received. Relatives told us the provider was flexible in accommodating their needs.

¿ Relatives were comfortable in approaching the provider. Although nobody we spoke with raised any issues or concerns, all of them were confident that the necessary action would be taken if they did have an issue.

¿ Relatives told us care workers were knowledgeable about their roles and knew how their family members liked to be supported. All of the feedback received highlighted confidence with the safety of the service.

¿ People were cared for by staff who felt valued and supported in their role.

¿ The provider had created links in the local area to help support people in the community. Relatives and health and social care professionals had confidence in the abilities of the registered manager and spoke positively about the service.

Rating at last inspection: We were not able to rate this service at the last inspection as the provider had only been providing personal care to two people for a limited period of time. This meant that although we were able to carry out an inspection we did not find enough information and evidence about parts of the key questions we ask about services, or the experiences of people using the service, to provide a rating for each of the five questions and an overall rating for the service. (Report published 30 August 2018).

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the outcome of the previous inspection. We had been in regular contact with the provider to confirm if they were continuing to provide a service to people.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection guidelines. We may inspect sooner if any concerning information is received.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

This comprehensive inspection took place on 17 July 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in December 2016.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection they were supporting two people in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Not everyone using Daallo Care Services Ltd receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Both people had been receiving personal care since May 2018. This meant that although we were able to carry out an inspection we did not find enough information and evidence about parts of the key questions we ask about services, or the experiences of people using the service, to provide a rating for each of the five questions and an overall rating for the service. We were therefore not able to rate the service against the characteristics for inadequate, requires improvement, good and outstanding ratings at this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 inconsistencies between the two care records we reviewed. Records did not contain sufficient and detailed information about the care and support people received.

Risk assessments covered a range of factors that people were at risk of, including environmental assessments to ensure people’s homes were safe. However not all risks were fully addressed with sufficient information available for staff to follow to keep people safe.

People who were supported with their medicines did not always have the full up-to-date information recorded in their care records.

Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and were confident the registered manager would take the appropriate action if they had any concerns. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure people were supported by suitable staff.

Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and there was evidence people had consented to their care, with records in place where people lacked capacity. However, one care record did not fully reflect how consent had been sought in line with best practice.

Care workers were positive about the supervision they had received but the agreed regular cycle of supervision had not been carried out at the time of the inspection. An induction and mandatory training programme was in place when new staff started to support them in their role.

Care records highlighted if people were supported with their nutritional needs and if they had any dietary preferences. However, one person’s nutritional risk had not been highlighted and more information was required to provide a more accurate summary of the support that was given.

People and their relatives had been actively involved in decisions about their agreed care and support. We received positive comments about the kind and caring nature of care workers and how respectful they were when carrying out their tasks.

Care workers did not always accurately complete records of the care and support people received.

The provider listened to people’s preferences with regard to how they wanted staff to support them with their cultural or religious needs.

People were provided with information on how to make a complaint and were able to share their views and opinions