Archived: MyCare Services

Updated 7 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place between 20 September and 1 October 2018 and was unannounced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that they would be in. One inspector carried out the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally required to let us know about. The local authority or CCG did not currently commission the service.

We spoke with six people using the service. We also spoke with the registered manager and two care staff. We viewed four people’s care record and medicines records. We also viewed two staff files and training records for ten staff, as well as a range of other records relating to the management and safety of the service.

Updated 7 November 2018

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own house. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. When we inspected there were 25 people receiving personal care.

At our last inspection on 7 June 2016 we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found evidence to show the service had deteriorated to Requires Improvement. We also found the provider had breached the regulation relating to good governance. This was because the provider currently lacked a structured approach to quality assurance. Due to staff shortages the registered manager was required to cover care shifts which meant the usual quality assurance checks had not been completed. Care plans and risk assessments had not been maintained or evaluated regularly. There were limited formal opportunities for people and staff to give feedback about the service. Questionnaires had not been sent to people to gather their views and staff meetings were not taking place.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. People said the registered manager was approachable.

Although staff found the registered manager supportive, the provider lacked a structured approach to supporting staff. Staff were not receiving one to one supervision sessions and appraisals had not been completed. Some essential training was overdue. The registered manager showed us evidence that this had been planned.

People consistently provided positive feedback about the care they received and the care staff. They also confirmed they felt safe.

Staff showed a good understanding of safeguarding and knew about the provider’s whistle blowing procedure. They told us they had not needed to raise concerns previously bit felt confident to do so if needed.

A consistent and reliable staff team provided people’s care. They told us staff turned up on time and stayed for the full length of the call. Recruitment checks were completed to ensure new staff were suitable to care for people using the service.

Medicines were managed safely. Medicines records contained a small number of inaccuracies. However, effective audits had identified these and action had been taken.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received the support they needed to meet with eating and drinking and to access health care services.

People’s needs had been assessed to identify their care needs and wishes. This was used to develop care plans.

People did not raise any concerns during the inspection but told us they knew how to complain. There had been no complaints received since we last inspected the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.