About the service: Mylife living assistance is a domiciliary care agency providing care to people in their own homes.

People’s experience of using this service:

At the time of our inspection, the service was not correctly registered. A new company was running the service but their application was still in process. The application to register had only been made after the new company took over.

There were significant risks facing the service in relation to staffing levels. A number of care staff had left and two office based staff had also left. This had resulted in a situation where the service was continually struggling to meet the demands of their care packages. There were occasions when care was being completed by one member of staff when they had been assessed as requiring two. The provider was rating care packages Red/Amber/Green to help ensure that the highest priority care packages received the care they needed. Some care packages were also being handed back to commissioners. The manager was covering significant numbers of care calls in addition to their role as manager.

People expressed frustration and concern about the staffing situation. However, when care was delivered, people were satisfied with the quality of care they received and felt safe with the staff supporting them.

Due to the staffing pressures and lack of office based support, systems for monitoring the service had lapsed. There was no auditing of care and medicines records taking place, although there was some evidence that people were being asked for their views of the service they received.

Rating at last inspection:

The service was last inspected in July 2018 and received a rating of Good at this time. As a result of this inspection the overall rating for the service has changed to requires improvement.

Why we inspected:

This was a focused inspection in response to concerns we received about the staffing situation at the service.

Follow up:

We have found three breaches of registration at this inspection. The provider will be asked to provide an action plan setting out how they plan to address these breaches.

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

The inspection took place on 17 July 2018 and was announced. We gave short notice of our inspection because the service provides domiciliary care and we needed to be sure that there would be someone present in the office to support the inspection. The was the first inspection of the service at its current location. The service was previously registered at another address within Bristol and operated under the name of Carewatch.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. At the time of our inspection 31 people using the service were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.

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.

Overall the service provided was good. However, across all domains the experience of people and staff varied and, we heard about individual circumstances where people weren’t entirely satisfied. Some common themes amongst people’s feedback was the timing of calls. People told us staff often ran late and they didn’t always know which care staff were coming. However, where care packages were working well, people reported building good relationships with their care staff. We heard examples of staff going above the expectations of their role to provide compassionate care for people and make a difference to the quality of their lives.

Training and support for staff was a further area where we had varied feedback. Some staff felt their training had been sufficient, though staff with no previous care experience found the induction ‘intense’ and a lot to take on board. Some new staff also felt that they had been placed with people whose care packages required more experienced staff. This variation in experiences was also reflected in feedback from people. Some for example, felt staff were trained well and carried out their care competently, whilst others said they didn’t always feel safe during moving and handling procedures. We have recommended that the service reviews their training and support for staff to ensure that it meets the needs of both experienced staff and those with no previous care experience.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of care packages and to keep people safe. Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and had received training in their area. People received safe support with their medicines. Staff understood the principles of the MCA.

The service was well led. The registered manager was transparent and honest about some of the challenges that had faced the service over the previous 12 months. There were improvement plans in place to address shortfalls within the service provided. There were systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. This included gathering feedback from people.