J-Shalom Limited trading as Spiritlife Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection they were supporting one person.

J-Shalom Limited trading as Spiritlife Care was last inspected in June 2014. This was under our old methodology and therefore the service was not previously rated. We undertook this inspection on 11 January 2018.

The same registered manager remained 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Care and support was delivered that met the person’s needs. The person was involved in decisions about their care and establishing the level of support they required. Staff supported the person in line with their wishes and preferences, and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff assessed any risks to the person’s safety and provided support in line with their risk management plans. Staff supported the person with application of their topical creams, other than that, the person was self-managing their medicines. The person also self-managed their nutritional and healthcare needs. Nevertheless, staff made the person a hot drink during their visit and ensured they were accessible to the person after the visit. The person had the capacity to make their own decisions about their care and welfare, and staff respected these decisions in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Safe recruitment practices were in place to ensure appropriate staff were employed. They completed regular training to ensure they had the required knowledge and skills to meet the person’s needs. The staff had an open relationship with the registered manager. They felt supported by the registered manager and found them to be accessible and approachable. The registered manager regularly met with the person receiving care and the care worker to obtain their feedback and review the quality of service delivery. The registered manager ensured appropriate policies and procedures were in place.

Due to the service currently only supporting one person we were unable to rate the service because there was insufficient evidence available for us to do so. The registered manager told us they were hoping to expand the service and provide support to more people which would enable us to rate the service at the next inspection.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service had a safeguarding policy in place that explained how the provider would protect people from abuse. The registered manager was the only person working in the service at the time of the inspection; they understood their role and responsibility in safeguarding people.

We saw that the service had infection control procedures. Staff were aware of the policy and understood their roles in relation to infection control.

We saw that the service carried out Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks on people who worked in the service to ensure that they were not barred from working in the care sector.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. This included emergency contact numbers, and first aid training for staff.

The registered manager understood the importance of holding best interest meetings in relation to making decisions where people lacked capacity. They were able to explain how the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) related to their service.

Is the service effective?

People’s social, health and support needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in reviewing their care plans. The care plans we read were individualised and detailed what people wanted to achieve. The plans had been written with the people who used the service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. The registered manager was able to explain how they supported people to maintain their dignity and respect and deliver services in a caring way. Care plans included details of how people liked to be supported.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that the service had a system in place to respond to complaints and comments. We saw that the service regularly asked people’s view of the service and responded to what people told them. The records we read showed that people needs were assessed before they were signed up to the service. We saw that checks were made to ensure people had not changed their minds about what they liked to do.

Is the service well-led?

The registered manager was clear about the aims and objectives of the service and had quality assurance processes in place that checked what people thought about the service. We saw that the service had sent feedback forms to people who used the service and their relatives.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report

J. Shalom provided care in the home for the elderly, and others that required additional support to carry out day to day tasks.

The agency was small. The roles of provider, registered manager and care worker were undertaken by the same person. We spoke to the one person who currently uses the service, who told us “she (care worker) is lovely, great ……I wouldn’t do without her.”

The agency currently has one person who uses the service and one member of staff providing the care, who is also the manager. We were able to have telephone contact with the person who uses the service. They told us that the carer was ‘very good’ and ‘we get on well, I call her my flower.’