MELM Care Solutions

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People received care that was personalised to their needs; however, the providers systems and processes were not always effective at ensuring continuity of care. The providers complaints and quality monitoring systems enabled people, relatives and staff to provide feedback. Staff and leaders told us care was provided in a timely way that promoted equality and people’s rights. The providers systems and processes supported the involvement of people in planning and delivering care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received care that was personalised to their needs. People spoke fondly about their care staff and told us they liked the way staff treated them. One relative told us they thought staff were very good with people using the service.

Support staff had a suitable understanding of how to adapt their approach to the needs of people living at the service. Support staff had a good understanding of the person’s needs, preferences and communication styles. Feedback from leaders indicated they promoted person centred support. Leaders also had a good understanding people’s needs.

We observed staff interacting and supporting people in a person-centred manner.

People and their relatives were positive about the care they received and had no significant concerns.

Staff and leaders knew people well and had a good understanding of how to ensure continuity of care.

Feedback from the local authority indicated the providers systems and processes were not always effective at ensure continuity of care. For example, they told us they found some care plans had not been read and signed by staff, and quality of life tools did not always contain accurate information about people’s needs.

We found some gaps in people’s mental capacity related assessments, and some care plans lacked detail to ensure continuity of care.

People were provided with information that was relevant to their care and support. However, due to a lack of decision specific capacity assessments, the provider could not be assured they fully understood people’s needs mental capacity related needs and therefore could not be assured all required support was in place.

Staff supported people to access and understand information when needed.

The providers complaints and quality monitoring systems enabled people, relatives and staff to provide feedback.

People were listened to and the service requested feedback from people and their relatives. There was an advocacy service involved to assist with communicating people’s wishes. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. Feedback from one relative indicated the provider kept them informed of any support changes or incidents.

Staff demonstrated they listened to people using the service and had a good understanding of how to receive and escalate complaints.

The provider's systems and processes supported the involvement of people in planning and delivering care. Records indicated incidents were responded to appropriate and learning took place to ensure the development of care routines.

People were able to access support when needed. Reviews took place to ensure care routines were adapted as people’s needs changed. The provider involved external professionals and services when reviewing people’s care. People and their relatives indicated they were felt they could access timely care, treatment and support when they need to and in a way that worked for them.

Feedback from staff and leaders indicated care was provided in a timely way that promoted equality and promoted people’s rights.

The provider's systems and processes promoted equitable access to timely care. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics.

People and relatives told us the service was well-led and people were well cared for by staff and care met positive outcomes.

Staff were alert to acts of discrimination and leaders were responsive to incidents where people’s rights were challenged.

The providers system and processes supported equitable treatment. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics.

No feedback was raised by people or their relatives that would indicate any concerns regarding planning for their future.

Feedback we received from the local authority indicated the provider was not always proactive at supporting people to plan for their future and did not always actively consider end of life care planning with people. We raised this with the provider, and they told us they were working with relatives to address this compassionately.

The provider had suitable systems and processes in place for supporting people to plan for their future.