Luv To Care Home Care Ltd

We assessed 5 quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Based on the outcome of this assessment the combined scoring for this key question has improved and the safe key question has been rated good overall.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Risks about people’s safety were assessed to ensure they were supported to remain as safe as possible. People received support from staff who received a range of training suitable to their role and staff were keen to enhance their knowledge and understanding. We reviewed records which identified there were enough staff to meet people's needs, however feedback from some people indicated staff sometimes arrived later than expected for their call or newer staff were not as confident which impacted their experience of the care provided. There were sufficient practices in place to protect people from the risk of infection and staff had access to plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment. People were supported to manage their medicines and care records included information for staff on how to meet people's needs.

We assessed 3 quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Based on the outcome of this assessment the combined scoring for this key question has improved and the effective key question has been rated good overall.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people's needs were assessed before they received care. Assessments included information for staff on people's individual diagnosis, health needs and how they would like their needs to be met. The provider used some nationally recognised practice tools to support them to identify and monitor risks to people such as the risk of malnutrition and tissue viability. Staff sought consent from people before assisting tasks, and the provider operated effective systems to act in people's best interest where they were assessed to lack capacity.

We assessed 2 quality statements in the well-led key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice, our rating for the key question remains requires improvement.

The provider operated clear and effective governance systems. This included a range of audits which were undertaken regularly to monitor, review and improve the service people received. Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported and knew how to seek advice, guidance and support as appropriated, however some staff felt they would benefit from better communication when feedback was raised leaders of the service.