This announced inspection took place on 16 March 2018. At our previous inspection we rated the service “Good". At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the same rating and the service continued to meet all the fundamental standards of quality and safety. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection is written in a shorter format because of our overall rating of the service has not changed.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of our visit there were 38 people using the service mainly in London borough of Redbridge and in Essex.

Not everyone using Jewish Care East London 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.

On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager. 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.

People told us they felt safe and trusted staff that looked after them. They told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and that they were informed if staff were running late.

Risk assessments for people and their environment were in place and reviewed regularly. These included fire, mobility, falls and medicines.

Medicines were managed safely by staff that had been assessed as competent at handling and medicines.

Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedures in place and were able to explain how they would recognise and report abuse.

Recruitment methods continued to be robust with all the necessary checks completed before staff started their jobs.

People were supported by staff that had undergone the necessary training, supervision and appraisal. Staff were aware of the mental capacity act and how they applied it their daily role.

Staff were aware of people’s cultural specific nutritional needs. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Where malnutrition was detected it was referred to other healthcare professionals for advice and monitoring.

People were cared for by staff who were polite and caring. They told us staff respected their privacy and wishes. Staff and records confirmed that people were supported to engage in meaningful activities to reduce social isolation.

Care plans were person centred and included people’s preferences and aspirations. They were reviewed regularly with people and their relatives.

There was a clear complaints policy which was understood by people and staff. Complaints were acknowledged and investigated in a timely manner.

People and their relatives thought the service was well- managed. There were effective systems in place to ensure the quality of care delivered was monitored.

Further information can be found in the detailed findings in the full report.

The inspection took place on 22 January 2016 and was announced. The service met legal requirements at our last inspection in December 2013.

Kennedy Leigh Home Care Redbridge provides personal care to over 30 people in the London borough of Redbridge. They provide a bespoke service for older adults of Jewish faith, some of whom may be living with dementia.

There was a registered manager 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.

People told us they felt safe and trusted the staff who looked after them. They were supported by staff who were aware of the procedures to protect them from abuse. Staff were enabled to support people effectively by means of training, appraisal, regular spot checks and supervision.

Staff were aware of the procedures to follow to ensure that medicines were handled safely. Risks to people and the environment were regularly assessed in order to protect people from avoidable harm.

We found that there were robust recruitment checks that included the necessary criminal checks to ensure that staff were suitable to work in the health and social care environment.

The service ensured that there were enough staff available to cover for emergency, absences and other leave in order to ensure that there were no missed visits.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how they would obtain consent to care. They had an awareness of how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applied in practice.

People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect and that their wishes were respected. They were aware of how to make a complaint and thought that their complaint would be listened to and resolved by the registered manager.

People told us that they were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts according to their tastes and preferences. Staff were aware of the procedures in place to refer people to other healthcare professionals when required.

The service had a positive culture that was open and inclusive. People and staff thought the management team were approachable and open to suggestions made in order to improve care delivery.

Systems were in place to obtain and act on issues raised by people. Quality checks were completed by the managers in order to monitor and improve the quality of care delivered.

During our inspection, we visited three people in their own homes and spoke with four others and some relatives by telephone. We found that people were complimentary about the service and the staff. One person told us, “It’s a very good service. I am very pleased.” This was echoed by a relative who said, “We are very happy with the care. The staff are doing a great job.”

One person said about the staff, "All I can say is one word: fantastic! The carers do everything for me, and they help me with whatever I need.”

Another person said, “They are very good and dedicated.” Their relative added, “The carers are terrific. I cannot speak too highly of them. They are very attentive. Really, they are very, very good workers, all of them.”

One relative told us, “The workers are always very pleasant, very helpful and very tolerant. They are very patient with (my relative). They seem to know what to do. I would be lost without them. Yes, I am very pleased with the service.”

We found that the service had system in place to gain and review consent from people who used the service and that people’s preferences had been respected.

Staff had administered medicines to people safely. We noted that the care plans and personal records had been maintained and kept up to date. All records had been kept securely and handled in accordance with the law on data protection and confidentiality.

People and their relatives told us staff asked them about their care, and how they wanted to be supported. One relative said "they (care staff) ask him what he wants, and then do it." People told us that staff were usually punctual, and that they stayed for their full allotted amount of time. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to promote people's dignity and choice. We found that care plans were in place which set out how to meet people's needs, for instance in relation to eating and drinking and personal care. People we spoke with told us staff knew how to meet their needs. One person said "they help me get showered and dressed. They do it well."

People we spoke with told us they felt safe, and that they knew how to raise any issues of concern. A relative told us "when we go on holiday we feel he is perfectly safe with them." We saw that staff undertook regular training, including on safeguarding vulnerable adults, dementia awareness and moving and handling. In addition, staff had regular one to one supervision with a senior member of staff. We saw that systems were in place for monitoring and assessing the quality of service provided. These included seeking the views of people who used the service and their relatives.