Aamevol Home Care Ltd

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 good. At this inspection the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm. People were not always safe using the service. We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing levels and the safe recruitment of staff. Processes were not in place to help make sure people using the service were kept safe. Staff did not have a good understanding of safeguarding and processes were not in place to monitor incidents and put measures in place to improve safety. People’s risk assessments were not detailed. Staffing levels were not being effectively monitored, and staff were not being recruited safely. People were not always supported safely with their medicines.

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s outcomes were not consistently good, and the provider did not always work with people to deliver their care and treatment. People did not always have effective support using the service. Their needs were not always assessed effectively and there was little evidence staff training was being checked to help make sure staff were competent to support people with their support needs. Daily records were not being completed consistently and were not being reviewed to make sure people were being supported to live healthy lives and achieve their health-related outcomes. People were being supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

People’s care plans and risk assessments gave limited information about how best to support them as individuals or to be independent if they chose to be. Staff gave mixed feedback about how well they were supported working at the service and were not being supported with supervisions and discussions in line with the providers policy. However, people and relatives told us staff supported them with kindness and compassion.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery. People’s care plans were not always personalised to give details about how to support people in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. There was no evidence processed were in place or staff had the training to support people with communication needs other than verbal communication. There was limited evidence people, relatives and staff were asked to feed back about their care and support. There was limited evidence people had been asked what they wanted to achieve whilst being supported by the service. People were supported by a consistent support team and staff responded to their requests to have their care visit times changed.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that 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 good. At this inspection 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. The service was not well-led. We found a breach of regulation in relation to the governance measures in place to monitor and audit the quality of the service. There were limited audits and quality checks being completed to monitor the quality of the service and no plans in place to improve the service. The registered manager did not have effective oversight of key aspects of the service such as how many staff were employed at the service, how to employ staff safely in line with legislation or the detail of people’s care plans and risk assessments. Staff did not always feel supported in their job role and there was no recorded evidence of staff having meetings to geed back and be involved in the running of the service. The registered manager and management team told us they wanted to improve and put a plan in place to do this during our inspection.