Light Care Services Limited Hampshire

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Inadequate. This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm.

We reviewed 7 quality statements for this key question. We found the provider did not have processes in place to ensure people received safe care. People’s care and support needs were not always managed safely, and detailed care plans and risk assessments had not been developed. Systems did not ensure medicines were administered safely.

There was a mixed response from people and their relatives about whether they felt safe, however we could not be assured leaders protected people from abuse and neglect. There were no systems in place to demonstrate staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people and staff had not received training to equip them in their role and to ensure they could provide safe care to people. Recruitment processes were unsafe.

We identified 4 breaches of the legal regulations related to; safe care and treatment, including the management of risks and the way people’s medicines were managed, safe and effective staffing, safeguarding and ensuring fit and proper persons were employed.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has not been fully assessed, therefore an overall rating for this key question can not be given.

We reviewed 2 quality statements for this key question. Leaders told us people’s needs were assessed before care packages were agreed and the completed pre-assessments formed the basis of people’s care plans. However, the care plans we looked at were not reflective of people’s current care and support needs. This meant we could not be assured staff had been provided with clear and detailed information about people’s needs and how to manage these effectively.

The leadership team had failed to identify care records lacked detail about people’s specific needs, and information was incorrect and contradictory. The lack of detailed information and guidance provided to staff put people at risk of receiving inappropriate or inconsistent care.

Although leaders described action they would take to share concerns with professionals in a timely why should concerns or issues arise, we are unable to establish if this was always done due to poor documentation and incomplete records. Lack of processes in place meant we could not be assured the service worked effectively with partners or that support from external healthcare professionals was requested in a timely way.

Leaders and staff did not have a clear understanding of the mental capacity act and how this should be applied to ensure people received safe care and support to meet their specific needs.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has not been fully assessed, therefore an overall rating for this key question can not be given.

We reviewed 3 quality statements for this key question. People and relatives were complementary about the kind and caring nature of the care staff. However, we had mixed views in relation to promoting independence, choice and control. Systems and processes were not in place to ensure people received care and support that met their needs and wishes.

The leadership team were unable to provide evidence that robust processes were followed to respond to people’s immediate needs and there was a lack of processes in place to demonstrate how the service treated people as individuals.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has not been fully assessed, therefore an overall rating for this key question cannot be given.

We reviewed 2 quality statements for this key question. The provider did not have systems in place for an inclusive culture built on listening and involving people. People and relatives were not supported to raise concerns or complaints or encouraged to feedback any areas for improvements. When concerns or complaints were raised, or feedback given these were not always investigated or acted upon.

Processes in place did not support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

We reviewed 7 quality statements for this key question and identified 3 breaches of the legal regulations, including, good governance, Notice of Change and Notification of other incidents.

There were no robust governance structures in place in the service and the leadership team lacked knowledge around the issues and priorities for the service and did not have access to appropriate support and development.

There was no robust processes of management oversight and quality monitoring in place to ensure continuous learning and improvement. Therefore, opportunities to improve the service and learn lessons could be missed. This placed people at risk of receiving poor care and avoidable harm.

People and relatives did not always feel they could speak up or that they would be listened to.

Shortfalls identified in this assessment were not recognised or actioned by the provider. Where concerns and issues were brought to the leadership teams’ attention, they did not demonstrate a realistic understanding of the widespread nature and seriousness of concerns identified and did not provide us with assurances effective actions would be taken to address the issues.