Archived: Mears Homecare Limited - Chapel en le Frith

This announced inspection was carried out on the 5 and 6 May 2016. Mears Homecare (Chapel en le Frith) provides care in people’s own homes in Chapel en le Frith and the surrounding area. The inspection was announced, and we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice to ensure there was a manager available to assist with the inspection process.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The provider ensured safe recruitment procedures were followed, this included Disclosure and Barring checks (DBS) and references. New staff had a period of induction along with a period of shadowing of more experienced staff.

Staff received induction, on-going training and regular supervision to ensure they had the skills to deliver care. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences for care.

There were sufficient staff available to visit people in their own homes, in a timely manner, and to meet individual needs. People were prompted and supported to take their medicines at the correct time. Records of people’s medicines were kept and audited monthly by a member of the management team to ensure the correct recording was carried out.

People told us they felt safe with the care and support they received. Staff had a good understanding of the risks involved in people’s care.

Consent to care was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood what was required of them in relation to decision making. People or their representative were involved in decisions relating to their care and care needs. People’s care plans contained information about how each person wanted to be assisted and supported. Care plans were reviewed and updated to reflect current wishes and needs.

Staff supported people and treated them with dignity and respect. People felt staff were caring and understood their care needs.

The provider sought people’s views about the care service. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place which people knew about. Complaints were looked into with actions and learning taken from them.

Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and the management team, who understood their duties and responsibilities.

There were systems in place for auditing the quality of the service provided. Where issues were identified, we saw the provider made changes to the service to improve the quality of care.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

The way people's care was planned helped to ensure their welfare and safety. Risks and changes in people's care needs were identified promptly and appropriate action taken. Medicines were managed safely at the service. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care people received and record any incidents and accidents. This helped reduced risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. A plan was in place for dealing with emergencies so that people would still receive care and were not put at risk.

Is the service effective?

We found people's needs were assessed and care files included information about their support and communication needs. Information was also present to guide staff about peoples' diagnosed health conditions or disabilities. Risks that could affect people had assessed and managed as part of the care planning process. Consent was obtained for people's care and appropriate arrangements made if people could not consent for themselves, for example due to a learning disability or dementia.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were treated with respect and dignity by staff from the service. One person told us, 'I am happy with the carers. They do a good job and try to do everything they can for me.' Care planning took account of people's wishes, preferences and background which helped ensure staff could provide personalised care that met their needs. People were fully informed about options and involved in planning their care. People told us they were aware of what was written in their care plans and some people helped to write them.

Is the service responsive?

Systems were in place for obtaining people's views about the service provided. People told us they knew how to make comments or a complaint if they were unhappy. People receiving care told us staff worked flexibly so that they could respond if the person's needs or plans changed. We saw the provider assessed the quality of care people received and that action was taken where improvements were needed. Records about people's care had been updated to include information to protect them from risks. We saw the provider assessed the quality of care people received and that action was taken where improvements were needed. Records about people's care had been updated to include information to protect them from risks.

Is the service well-led?

Regular checks were made by the manager and team leaders of aspects of people's care, health and safety and staff training. People receiving care, their relatives and other people involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey and records showed action was taken where any improvements were required. Staff were able to contribute their views about the service in team meetings and through surveys. As a result, the managers were able to plan any improvements that were needed to the way the service was provided.

We found some care planning was detailed but that information was not always available to ensure people received care that met their individual needs. Some risks that could affect people were not assessed and guidance provided for staff.

We found that consent was sometimes being obtained for people's care. Where people were not able to consent for themselves, for example due to dementia or a learning disability, the correct procedures were not always followed.

We saw that adequate procedures were in place for recruiting staff to work at the service and that relevant training was provided. Staff had not always received regular supervision although we saw plans had been made to address this.

People told us they knew how to raise any concerns about the service. We saw that complaints and comments were responded to appropriately and according to the provider's policy.