London Care (Westminster)

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 3 January 2025 (assessment visit 19 June 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

   Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

   People received a safe service, were protected from abuse or neglect and had their human rights promoted. Staff and managers understood the reporting procedure for any safeguarding concerns or allegations. Risks to people were assessed and their safety was monitored and managed, with minimal restrictions on their freedom. Accidents and incidents were monitored and analysed, so lessons could be learned, and recurrences could be avoided. The service established solid relationships with healthcare professionals to help maintain people’s safety. The service followed robust recruitment procedures and there were enough suitably trained staff employed to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

   Risks and hazards in people’s home environments were identified and mitigated in collaboration with people using the service. Staff and people using the service were protected from acquiring infections as much as possible. Staff completed comprehensive training for infection control and the provider made sure staff always had enough PPE. Staff supported people to manage their medicines safely where required. Regular medicines audits were completed, staff were trained and their competency was checked at regular intervals.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   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. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

   People had their needs assessed and their choices listened to. People’s needs assessments formed the basis of their care plans and these were accurate and up to date. People’s care needs were regularly reviewed and any changes or updates that were required were made accordingly. People were supported to understand the care and support that was being offered to them. Where possible, people personally confirmed their consent to receive care and support, and this was recorded in their care plans. If people using the service lacked mental capacity to give their consent, this was obtained and recorded by others who were appointed and authorised to make decisions on their behalf.

   We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question, as we did not identify concerns relating to those areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

   People were involved in planning the care and support they received. Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence and people were supported to make their own choices and decisions. People had control over their lives, including their care and support. The service supported people to understand their rights by using different languages and individual communication techniques.

   The provider had excellent systems and processes in place to make sure staff’s health, safety and wellbeing was consistently promoted. The management team was well structured and they made sure staff felt valued and included in all aspects of the service.

   We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question, as we did not identify concerns relating to those areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

   People received a personalised service and were able to access any external resources they needed without barriers or delays. People were supported to live their lives as they chose, without discrimination. People knew how to make a complaint if needed. Complaints were listened to and responded to appropriately. Information from complaints, comments or concerns was used to help drive improvement.

   We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question, as we did not identify concerns relating to those areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

5. Well-led

   GGood Good

   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. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

   The service had made improvements to assessing and mitigating risks to the health and safety of people using the service. They had also made improvements to ensure systems and processes were being operated effectively to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Staff and leaders ensured records regarding people’s care and the management of the service were accurate and up to date. The staff and management worked well with external professionals. Staff felt confident to speak up and were positive about the support they received from the whole management team. There was an open and inclusive workforce, which promoted people and staffs’ equity of experience and celebrated diversity. The provider had an effective process for evidencing lessons learnt. There were effective quality assurance processes and systems were in place to monitor and audit the quality of the service.