Loading
Date of assessment: 4 August to 19 August 2025. Site visits to the providers registered office address were carried out on 8 August and 12 August 2025. An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is registered for use by autistic people or people with a learning disability. At the time of the assessment, the service was not delivering personal care to anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group. CareCaliRaya Ltd T/A Apollo Care South Liverpool is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our assessment, 35 people received support with personal care. During the assessment, 2 regulatory breaches in respect of safe care and treatment and governance were identified. People’s safety was not always managed effectively.The assessment and planning of people’s care did not always adhere to best practice guidance. Where people had individual risks, we found no adequate assessment of these risks had been completed. Safe systems were not always adopted before people were admitted to the service. However, we found staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and risks and they could confidently describe the action they took to keep people safe and reduce the risk of harm. Staff were safely recruited and deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs. However, the provider did not always make sure staff received training to equip them with the necessary skills to meet people’s individual needs. Medicines were not always safely managed. When people required support with medicines, they did not always have a detailed care plan in place and not all staff administering medicines had their competency assessed in line with best practice guidance. People were not always supported to plan for important life changes. People’s care plans had a section relating to end of life care but in most cases, these were either blank or not sufficiently detailed with people’s end of life care wishes. Governance systems did not always enable the provider to identify where quality and/or safety were being compromised to ensure they could respond appropriately and without delay. The provider’s auditing systems had not identified all shortfalls we found during this inspection which meant opportunities to improve the safety of the service were missed. Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. There was a strong, person-centred culture within the service. Staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care met people’s needs and preferences and they understood the importance of gaining consent prior to supporting people with care. Overall, the provider collaborated well with relevant external stakeholders to promote the health, safety and wellbeing of the people. We received feedback from several health care professionals who were all positive about how the provider worked in partnership with them. People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care and processes were in place to ensure people's views were considered. The provider acknowledged some areas of the service required improvement and further development. They responded positively to CQC feedback demonstrating a clear commitment to ensuring the culture and delivery of care met regulatory requirements. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-15500386093.