Community of Refugees from Vietnam- East London provides a domiciliary care service to older people from the Vietnamese community in the local area. The provider was founded in 1984 to meet the needs of people who had come to London as refugees, and is now providing home care and support to five people.

At the last inspection in July 2015 the service was rated “Good”. At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good'.

People told us that they benefitted from a service that provided staff who spoke their language and was provided within their community. People we spoke with told us they felt safe and that staff were punctual and treated them with kindness. Most people had been receiving care from the same care workers for 10 years. Everyone we spoke with was happy with the service which was provided.

People’s care was planned to meet their needs, and this was monitored through the use of personalised daily logs. The provider carried out quarterly reviews and satisfaction surveys to ensure people were happy with their service and that this still met their needs. A summary of care needs and the daily log were provided in Vietnamese, along with information about the service and who to contact in an emergency. Care plans were written in English, but people were happy with the level of information which was provided in their own language.

People were familiar with the registered manager and knew who to speak to if they had a complaint or a concern. There was evidence that people had consented to their care, and the provider had detailed people’s abilities to make choices for themselves. Care plans had clear information on the informal support people received from their families and who was responsible for making sure people’s needs were met.

Staff received regular supervision and appropriate levels of training. Staff we spoke with had received training in safeguarding and recognised signs of abuse, and were aware of how to respond if they had concerns about people’s safety.

The provider had assessed risks to people, but we found in some cases risk assessments lacked detail on how to manage long term health conditions and the risk of falling. We found that people were prompted with their medicines appropriately, but the provider had not always assessed the risks associated with people’s medicines and did not have information on the medicines people took. We have made a recommendation about this.

The inspection took place at the provider’s office on 27 May 2015 and was followed up by phone calls and home visits. The inspection was announced; it was carried out by a single inspector with assistance from an independent interpreter when speaking with people who used the service. The service had not been inspected previously.

At the time of the inspection the service supported three people of Vietnamese heritage who received a total of 21.5 hours personal care per week between them, mainly to assist with bathing and intimate care tasks. This service is known locally as the Vietnamese homecare service.

The provider also runs other services for the Vietnamese community, such as a lunch club for older people and an advice service. These activities are not regulated by the Care Quality Commission so they were not inspected. However, the same staff work across all parts of the service so people who use the homecare service see them in more than one role. Therefore staff and people who use the service knew each other well.

A registered manager was in place. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager reported to a management committee.

We found people were provided with a personalised service in their own homes and staff went the ‘extra mile’ by providing informal interpreting services to ensure people could access healthcare services and by assisting them to deal with official letters sent in English. People spoke highly of the staff and the service they received and could not think of any way it could be improved.

People told us they made decisions for themselves and staff listened to their wishes. They said staff were kind, helpful and punctual. We found staff were well-informed and conscientious; they had all achieved a minimum national vocational training (NVQ) level 3 in health and social care.

The provider needed to improve record keeping. There was too much reliance on staff knowing people well; more information needed to be written down in case of any later queries. We have made a recommendation about this.