Archived: Mears Care - Lincoln

Updated 19 January 2016

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 on 11 November 2015 and was announced. Forty-eight hours’ notice of the inspection was given to ensure that the people we needed to speak with were available. In particular we wanted to ensure that we were able to speak to staff who would otherwise be out providing care. The inspection team comprised of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience had personal experience of community services.

During the inspection the inspector spoke with two care staff, the regional manager and the registered manager. We reviewed records which included 20 people’s care plans, two staff recruitment files and records relating to the management of the service. Following the inspection we spoke with 15 people who used the service by telephone and three family members.

Updated 19 January 2016

This inspection took place 11 November 2015 and was announced. Mears Care Lincoln provides personal care in people’s homes to adults of all ages with a range of health care needs. When we undertook our inspection there were approximately 270 people using the service and the service was providing approximately 2500 hours of care a week.

At the time of our inspection 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.

Most people said they felt safe with the care they received from their regular carers but expressed concern that they did not have as much confidence in the relief carers. Staff had completed safeguarding training and had access to guidance. They were able to recognise if people were at risk and knew what action they should take.

Where risks had been identified there were plans to manage them. effectively. Staff understood risks to people and followed guidance. Staff were alert to changes in people’s usual presentation. They recorded incidents and reported them.

There was usually sufficient staff to provide people’s care. Recruitment checks ensured that people were protected from the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff. People’s care was provided by staff who were sufficiently trained and supported.

People didn’t always get their medicines on time. Staff undertook medicines training and were observed by senior staff when delivering care. Staff had received an induction when they started employment with the provider and completed further training relevant to people’s needs and were supported to undertake professional qualifications. Systems were in place to support staff and monitor their work.

The provider mostly acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), however it was not always clear where people lacked the capacity to consent to their care and what care was being provided in their best interests. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect.

Care plans were updated regularly. People’s needs in relation to nutrition and hydration were documented. Care plans were personalised and people were supported to maintain their choices.

Staff felt supported and the manager ensured people had information and support to make complaints. Where complaints were made they were investigated and actions taken in response. The majority of people told us there were good communications from the office and issues were usually resolved. People’s feedback on the service was sought through a range of reviews. Staff were encouraged to speak with the office about any concerns they had about people’s care.