Our inspection of Unit 2 Watling Gate took place on 21 and 24 February 2017 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because we wanted to be sure that a manager was available when we visited.

We had undertaken a focused inspection of Unit 2 Watling Gate on 2 and 6 September 2016 at which a breach of legal requirements was found. This was because suitable reference and criminal records checks were not in place for all staff members working at the service. Following this inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to this breach.

Our inspection of Unit 2 Watling Gate took place on 21 and 24 February 2017 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because we wanted to be sure that a manager was available when we visited.

We had undertaken a focused inspection of Unit 2 Watling Gate on 2 and 6 September 2016 at which a breach of legal requirements was found. This was because suitable reference and criminal records checks were not in place for all staff members working at the service. Following this inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to this breach.

During our inspection of 21 and 24 February 2017 we found that the provider had followed their plan and actions to address the breach had been taken.

Unit 2 Watling Gate provides domiciliary care services to people who live in the London Borough of Harrow. At the time of this inspection the service was working with 60 people, some of whom were receiving short term reablement support following a stay in hospital.

The service has 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 that they felt safe when receiving care. Staff members understood how to safeguard the people whom they supported. There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure that people’s needs were met and that there was continuity of care. The provider had carried out checks to ensure that staff members were of good character and suitable for the work that they were engaged in.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that risks associated with the provision of care and support were assessed and managed. Risk assessments were linked to guidance for staff on how to manage risk and had been regularly reviewed and updated where there was any change.

Staff received regular training that covered a wide range of topics which met national training standards for staff working in health and social care services. They were able to describe the training that they had received and tell us about how it helped them to support the people with whom they worked.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that staff were provided with regular supervision by a manager. Supervisions were supported by regular unannounced “spot checks” of care which took place in people’s homes.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported, and people were involved in making decisions about their care. People and family members told us that they thought that staff who worked with them were professional, caring and respectful. Staff spoke positively about the work that they did and the people whom they supported.

People knew how to contact the office and were confident that the provider would deal with complaints appropriately and quickly. We saw that people’s feedback about the service showed high levels of satisfaction with the care and support that they received.

There were effective processes in place to monitor the care and welfare of people and improve the quality of the service. The provider was introducing an electronic quality as

We inspected Unit 2 Watling Gate on 2 September 2016. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and the registered manager is often out undertaking duties associated with the service. We returned to the service on 6 September to obtain further information. We undertook this focused inspection as a response to concerns that we had received about the service in relation to staff recruitment and support, and the monitoring of care and safeguarding procedures.

During our previous comprehensive inspection of the Unit 2 Watling Gate in March 2015 we rated the service as good. We made one recommendation in relation to the introduction of formal medicines administration records.

We undertook this focused inspection in order to follow up concerns that we had received about the service in relation to staff recruitment and support, and the monitoring of care and safeguarding procedures.

Unit 2 Watling Gate provides domiciliary care services to people who live in the London Borough of Harrow. At the time of this inspection the service was working with 30 people, the majority of whom were receiving short term reablement support.

A registered manager was in place at the service. 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.

Staff members were recruited in a way that ensured that they were suitable for the work they were undertaking in most cases. However, we were not satisfied that recruitment had always been undertaken safely. We were unable to see that references had been obtained for two staff members. We also found that the provider had not always sought criminal records and disclosure checks prior to staff being employed by the service. The records for two staff members related to previous employment.

We found that records of the on-going support that staff members received in their role were limited. Some staff members had not received recorded supervision and appraisal to ensure that they were competent in their roles.

The provider did not have formal processes in place to monitor whether or not care workers were on time and stayed the allocated time for their visits. Although some monitoring took place, there were limited records of this, particularly in relation to people who might be unable to say whether or not care visits took place appropriately.

Records of safeguarding concerns were maintained by the provider. These had been recorded appropriately and reported to the local authority safeguarding team in a timely manner.

Appropriate records in relation to medicines administration were in place.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The inspection took place on 4 and 10 March 2015 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be available when the inspection took place.

Unit 2 Watling Gate is a domiciliary care agency that provides a range of care supports to adults living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care to three people.

Unit 2 Watling Gate was registered with The Care Quality Commission on 6 September 2013. This was their first inspection.

The Service had 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.

Family members spoke positively about the care that was provided by the service. One told us that they had recommended the service to others.

Records of administration of medicines were limited. Staff prompting people to take their medicines recorded this in daily notes of care. It was not clear from these notes whether or not this had always been recorded.

We have made a recommendation about medicine administration records.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify potential areas of concern and prevent abuse from happening. Staff members demonstrated that they understood how to safeguard the people whom they were supporting. Training and information was provided to staff.

Risk assessments were up to date and contained detailed information for staff members in how to manage any identified risk to the person they were supporting.

Staff recruitment processes were in place to ensure that workers employed by the service were suitable. Staffing rotas met the current support needs of people. Staff had access to management support at any time of day or night.

Staff training was generally good and met national standards for staff working in social care organisations. Induction training was refreshed regularly and enhanced by addition training sessions. Staff members received regular supervision sessions with a manager, but this was not always recorded.

Staff members that we spoke with understood the importance of capacity to consent, and we saw that information about consent was included in people’s care plans. The service’s policy on Mental Capacity required updating.

Information regarding people’s dietary needs was included in their care plans, and detailed guidance for staff was provided in order to ensure that they met individual requirements.

Staff members spoke positively and respectfully about their approaches to care, and the people that they provided care to.

Care plans were up to date and contained detailed information about people’s care needs and how these would be supported. Family members were positive about the quality of care that was provided and the information that they received. The quality of care was monitored regularly through contact with people who used the service and family members where appropriate.

People who used the service knew what to do if they had a concern or complaint.

The service was well managed. Staff and family members spoke positively about the registered manager. A range of processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service, such as spot checks of care practice, and service user satisfaction surveys.