You are here

Marie Curie Nursing and Domiciliary Care Service North West Region Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 May 2017

The inspection of Marie Curie Nursing and Domiciliary Care Services was announced and was carried out between 7 and 23 March 2017. This was the first inspection of this location following changes to the provider’s registration. However, the service had been operating for several years and had previously been registered at a national level.

The service specialises in providing nursing and personal care to people living with terminal illnesses and life limiting conditions in their own homes. At the time of our inspection services were being provided to approximately 80 people across the North West region.

The service had 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.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt the service was safe. Relatives told us they had confidence in the service and felt their relatives were safe and secure with Marie Curie staff. Staff were trained to recognise and report any concerns about people’s safety and welfare. All the required checks were done before new staff started work which helped to protect people from the risk of receiving care and support from staff unsuitable to work in a care setting. Newly appointed staff undertook a full programme of induction training and worked with more experienced colleagues until they were assessed as competent to work alone.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were identified and managed. The majority of the services provided were delivered overnight and there were clear procedures for staff to follow in the event of an incident, accident or emergency.

Where appropriate, people were supported safely with medicines.

People’s consent was always obtained before any care or treatment was delivered. People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and procedures in the service supported this practice.

People were supported by a team of staff who were trained and supported to understand and meet their needs. People were very complimentary about the staff and in addition to expressing confidence in their ability to provide safe and appropriate care, they described them as always being caring and compassionate. Relatives told us the service had been invaluable to them by providing the support they needed to fulfil people’s wish to spend their last days of life in the comfort of their own home. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People’s needs were assessed and information about their needs and preferences was recorded. Relatives told us staff were always attentive to people’s individual needs and preferences.

People were given information about the service which explained how the service worked, what they should expect and what they should do if they had any concerns. We found people did not have any complaints or concerns about the service. There were systems in place for dealing with concerns and complaints and concerns. All concerns and complaints were dealt with and were seen as an opportunity to improve the service.

The services provided by Marie Curie in the North West were delivered as part of a package of care and therefore working with other agencies and professionals was an integral part of how the service was delivered. For example, in the case of the planned overnight packages of care the service worked with district nursing teams and the rapid response teams worked in conjunction with a local hospice and NHS hospital.

Staff had limited involvement in supporting people with eating and drinking. However, there was evidence staff were attentive to supporting people with drinks and to ensuring their comfort by carrying out mouth care.

The culture of the service was open and transparent. Everyone involved with the service was encouraged to share their views and have a say in how the service developed and improved. The management team were continuously focussed on improving the experiences of people who used the service.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the services provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained to recognise and report any concerns about people’s safety and welfare.

The recruitment procedures were robust and helped to make sure only staff suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were identified and managed.

Where it was part of the agreed package of care people received appropriate support with their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was effective.

The service provided very effective care and treatment that supported people at the end of their lives to remain at home.

The service worked closely with other professionals to ensure people received high standards of co-ordinated health care.

People received care, treatment and support from staff that were trained and supported to understand and meet their needs.

People’s consent to care and treatment was always obtained before any care, treatment or support was delivered.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was caring.

Relatives and carers of people who used the service were very complimentary about the caring and compassionate way in which care and support was delivered.

People told us the support they received from the service meant their relatives were able to spend their last days of life in the comfort of their own homes.

People, relatives and carers were fully involved in all decisions about care and their personal preferences were respected. People’s privacy, dignity and autonomy was at the centre of every aspect of the service.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and information about their needs and preferences was recorded. Staff were allocated on a daily basis and were matched to people’s individual needs. Relatives told us staff were attentive to people’s individual needs and preferences.

People were given information about how to raise a concern or make a complaint. Concerns and complaints were taken seriously and viewed as opportunities to improve the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 May 2017

The service was well led.

There was a clearly defined management structure. The management team understood their roles and responsibilities.

There was an open and transparent culture and a commitment to continuously improving the experiences of people who used the service.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were encouraged to share their views and contribute to the continuous development and improvement of the service.

There were well established systems and processes in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the services provided.