You are here

Archived: Forget-Me-Not Homecare Services

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 31 October 2013
Date of Publication: 28 November 2013
Inspection Report published 28 November 2013 PDF | 66.57 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 31 October 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

At our previous inspection we had concerns regarding this outcome and issued a compliance action. At the time we were concerned there was no system in place for monitoring the administration of medicines or recording incidents regarding errors with medicines. We saw there was a quality assurance questionnaire in place but could not see how results from the questionnaire had been used to assess or improve the standard of care provided.

At this inspection we asked to see the policy outlining the system for recording the administration of medicines and the recording of any errors. We saw the policy was clear and comprehensive. There was an example of a medicine administration error form in which details of the incident and any following actions could be documented. A member of staff we spoke with confirmed they knew what to do if they observed a medication error and where the policy was kept. This demonstrated there was an effective system in place to protect people from the risk of medication errors.

We looked at Forget-Me-Nots’ satisfaction survey which had been developed since our previous inspection. We saw it covered areas such as staff professionalism, friendliness, time keeping and dress code. The survey was due to be circulated soon after our visit and so we were unable to examine the results or how they were used to improve the service. We discussed with the registered manager how else they gathered the views of people who used the service. We were told the agency was small and therefore management were able to maintain personal relationships with all people using the service. We saw that when people rang the office the details of the call were logged and office staff ticked the message sheet to show they had seen it. Any actions following the call were also recorded. The records were then filed in people’s individual files. This showed us the organisation recorded peoples’ queries and were able to evidence actions taken as a result.

Whilst we were in the office we heard the deputy manager talking on the phone with people who used the service and a relative. We noted the conversations were friendly and respectful. People we spoke with told us if they had any problems they would ring the office and said they found management to be “approachable”. We were satisfied the agency was responsive to any complaints and comments expressed by people who used the service or their representative.