About the service:

Star Care UK Limited provides personal care to people living in their own homes in different boroughs around the London area. At the time of our visit, they were providing personal care to 330 people.

People’s experience of using this service:

Staff understood what constituted abuse or poor practice and systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were identified. However, information in the risk assessments could be more comprehensive.

Appropriate measures were in place to ensure staff assisted people to take their medicines safely. People were supported to have their nutritional needs met and there was guidance in care records as to how to meet these.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did support this practice. People were able to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff received training and support to deliver a good quality of care to people and a training programme was in place to address identified training needs. People’s privacy and dignity were respected. Staff were caring in their approach and had a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes and preferences.

There were assessments undertaken and care plans developed to identify people’s health and support needs.People were supported to maintain good health and to access healthcare services when they needed them. There was a positive relationship between people and staff who supported them.

The provider ensured there were enough staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff recruitment processes were robust.

People and their representatives felt the service was well managed and staff felt supported. There were effective management systems to monitor and improve the quality of service provided. The service worked in partnership with other health professionals to ensure people received effective care and support.

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

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good (report published 1 February 2017).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

This inspection took place on 18 January 2017 and was announced. The registered manager was given 24 hours' notice. We needed to be sure that members of the management team were available to talk to.

At the last inspection on 19 October 2016, we found the service to be in breach of the regulation relating to notifications. We found the registered manager did not always notify the CQC of safeguarding alerts, which they were legally obliged to inform us about. This was discussed with the registered manager, who stated any future notifications would be sent to us without delay.

After the inspection, the registered provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach.

We undertook this announced focused inspection on 18 January 2017 to check they had followed their plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report of our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Star Care UK Limited on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Star Care UK Limited provides personal care to people living in their own homes in different boroughs around the London area. At the time of our visit, they were providing personal care to 638 people. The provider had 210 staff in their employment.

There was a registered manager 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.

At this inspection, we found the registered manager had taken sufficient action to ensure they notify us about certain changes, events and incidents affecting their service or the people who use it.

This inspection took place on 19 and 24 October 2016 and was announced. The registered manager was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. This was to ensure members of the management team were available to talk to.

There was a registered manager 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.

Star Care UK Limited provides personal care to people living in their own homes in different boroughs around the London area. At the time of our visit, they were providing personal care to 573 people. The service had 200 staff in their employment.

People felt the management team and staff listened to them and responded to any concerns in a positive way. They knew how to complain if they had to and felt the service was managed well. However, we found the registered manager did not submit statutory notifications to the Care Quality Commission, as required by law.

People felt safe using the service. They trusted the staff, who they said were kind and caring.

There were systems in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were able to recognise potential signs of abuse and were confident reporting concerns regarding people's safety.

We found risks to people and their environment were assessed in order to protect them from avoidable harm. Staff had a good understanding of how care and support should be provided in order to keep people safe.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely. The registered manager ensured enough staff were available to cover for emergencies. Staff received on-going training, and they felt supported in their roles and understood their responsibilities.

Staff were trained and aware of the procedures to follow to ensure medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines on time and as prescribed.

Records showed people had their needs assessed, and a care plan developed to meet their individual needs. People were involved in the planning and reviews of their care and support. We have made about care planning.

Staff had good knowledge of the needs of the people they cared for. They provided support in a way that promoted people's dignity, independence and respected their privacy.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare when required. They were assisted with their dietary and nutritional needs as requested.

The provider had suitable arrangements for obtaining consent, assessing mental capacity and recording decisions made in people's best interests. Staff demonstrated an understanding of how they would obtain consent to care.

There were systems to monitor the quality of care which included audits, surveys and quality checks. The management team visited people on a regular basis to ensure they were happy with the care and support they were receiving. Unannounced checks were also carried on staff to monitor their practice and performance.

We conducted this inspection to follow up on concerns related to safety of people who used the service. We visited the office on 20 October 2014. We spoke to 20 people five relatives and ten staff over the telephone. We had mixed reviews about the service. Most people were satisfied. However, there were a few exceptions who thought care staff could be better matched with the individuals of the same ethnicity they looked after. Management told us this was not always possible as skills and gender preferences took precedence over ethnicity.

We reviewed 10 care records, complaints, staff training and 10 staff folders. We also received a concern anonymously relating to the care of one person who used the service.

The provider was providing a safe service most times with a few exceptions, where failures had been rectified, such as the purchasing of a new standing hoist and training staff on how to use it properly in order to address a recent incident relating to an inappropriate sling being used. The service on the whole was well led with the exception of a few communication issues around incident escalation at weekends. This had been resolved with the individual concerned who had failed to follow procedures to do a site visit and risk assess following a person having received hospital treatment at the weekend.

There were systems in place to ensure that effective care was delivered. These included regular spot checks on staff by the supervisors. The service was usually responsive to the needs of the people. This was evidenced by comments and personalised care plans we saw.

The agency was providing care to over 200 people across London. We spoke with five people who used the service or their relatives over the telephone. We also obtained written feedback from 11 people or their relatives who completed our questionnaire about the service.

People using the service or their relatives said they were involved in decisions about their care and their care workers respected their wishes. People were positive about the service and some people who completed questionnaires or spoke with us praised their care workers highly.

The agency assessed people's needs and any risks associated with their care. The agency had policies and procedures in place regarding the management of medicines. The staff we spoke with understood how to prompt people to take their medicines safely.

Senior staff monitored the service and checked that staff followed care plans. People using the service were asked for feedback. Staff confirmed they were supported in their roles with access to training, individual supervision and staff meetings.

During this inspection we spoke with five people who use the service and a relative. They indicated that they were satisfied with the care provided by the agency and people had been treated with respect and dignity. Their views can be summarised by the following comment from a person who use the service,”They are very nice to me and I am very happy with the care. They do a good job. ”

Four staff we spoke with were aware of the importance of treating people with respect and dignity regardless of their backgrounds. The needs of people had been carefully assessed and care plans prepared. The preferences and choices of people had been noted in the care arrangements. People said they had been consulted regarding the care provided. Regular reviews of care had been carried out to ensure that the care provided was appropriate.

The agency had suitable arrangements for ensuring that people were safeguarded and protected from abuse. Staff had been provided with training in safeguarding people and other appropriate training to enable them to perform their duties. Staff stated that they had received support and supervision from their managers.

Effective arrangements for monitoring the quality of care provided were in place and these included quality monitoring visits to the homes of people who use the service.