Archived: Mears Care - Loughton

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service caring?

We asked people about their care assessment. One person said, “Yes it was all explained they brought a leaflet and a book to sign.” Another person said, “Someone came and explained, they asked me what time I wanted them to come and what I wanted done.”

One person who used the service said. “I have had the same lady come to me for ten years and I have no complaints.” 12 people out of 20 told us that the service had not sent them a rota for the past week so they did not know who was coming. The manager told us that the service had experienced problems with a new method of sending rota’s to people which involved a franking machine. This problem had now been addressed. Everyone we spoke with told us that the care staff always treated them with dignity and respect, when they were working with them. One person told us, “The staff are great, I look forward to their visit.” We asked them why? “They replied, “They understand me, we have a joke and nothing is too much trouble.”

Is the service responsive?

The service employed senior staff to support the care staff. One of the senior staff roles was to cover visits when care staff were sick to ensure continuity of care. During times of high staff sickness, there were occasions when the service had not been able to provide staff to attend to people’s needs at the agreed allocated time. The service had informed people who used the service or relatives they would be late and worked with them to ensure the persons needs were met.

Is the service safe?

We spoke with the training co-ordinator who explained to us the induction programme for new staff which included information about safeguarding and risk assessments to protect vulnerable adults. New staff were personally introduced to the person who used the service by a known person prior to the new staff member providing their care and support. One person told us, “Yes I am happy and I feel safe.” When asking a relative about safety they said, “Yes absolutely she is safe.”

Each care plan included a risk assessment and care notes were written following each visit to show how the care was delivered. We saw 10 care records and each had details regarding how the care staff were to provide care to people and to ensure their dignity was upheld.

Is the service effective?

Staff had a good knowledge of people's needs and how to provide for these effectively and consistently. The service sought the views of people who used the service and the last survey had been carried out in February 2014. The service provided supervision and appraisals to staff and carried out spot checks of staff’s care practices to ensure they delivered high standards of care.

Is the service well led?

The service was visited monthly by a senior manager to discuss and resolve any issues that had arose. The manager provided a monthly report to an area manager regarding specific quality issues of the service. Staff told us that the manager's door was always open and that if ever they had any concerns they were confident that these would be acted upon. The service had invested in robust induction training programme for new staff. This was to ensure staff had the necessary skills to meet the needs of the people they would be supporting.

Overall, the responses showed that people were generally satisfied with the care and support provided by their regular care workers although some people were dissatisfied that visits did not always happen at the agreed time. The majority of people rated the care as good or excellent, no one rated it as poor.

One person commented, “Mostly we have an excellent service. We have the same carers throughout the week. This makes mum feel happier. She gets confused easily and continuity of carers is helpful, and appreciated!”

There were clear policies and procedures in place to support safe medication management.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

We found that staff members were not always provided with the training and support to enable them to provide safe care to meet people’s needs.

The provider had an effective system to seek the views of people who used the service.

We found that people were actively involved in their care plans and were aware of the complaints procedure.

We noted that risks associated with people's medication were not consistently managed.

Staff received appropriate induction and training. A number of new staff were being monitored on site significantly later than prescribed in the provider's procedures This may present a risk to people using the service.

We found evidence of quality assurance systems in place. We noted that people were not satisfied with the out of hours duty system and that they had not been consistently informed when carers were either replaced or late.

People made a number of comments. One person said “My regular carers are very good”. Another person said, “Some carers are very good and caring. [However] I am not told when carers are going to be late or if the carer is different from the one I am expecting”.

One person said, “I don’t like opening the door to people I don’t know. I really should be told if a different carer is coming to see me”.