Archived: Mears Care - Stoke

Is the service safe?

The provider had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that people received safe care.

The provider had made improvements in relation to medication since our last inspection. Detailed records of medicines administered by staff included information about prescribed creams. Body maps had been included in records to ensure that creams were applied when, where and how they were prescribed. This ensured that people had their medicines administered correctly and safely in line with the prescriber's instructions.

Improvements had been made in care records to ensure that staff had the required information about the equipment and transfer techniques necessary to support people with personal care at home. This reduced the risk of people receiving unsafe or inappropriate care because appropriate records had been kept.

An effective staff recruitment and selection procedure was in place. Appropriate references and checks had been undertaken to ensure that staff were suitable to carry out their work. New staff had appropriate induction and training to ensure they had the skills and competencies to care for people safely.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them before they received the service. Regular reviews of care plans and quality reviews had been carried out to ensure people's needs continued to be met. Care information was up to date and reflected people's current needs.

People had been involved in planning their care and had signed to confirm their agreement with the care and support provided for them. All new referrals to the service, care plans and risk assessments had been checked by the manager to ensure their accuracy.

Is the service caring?

Five people using the service and seven relatives told us that they were highly satisfied with the service. People spoke highly of staff supporting them. Comments included, "I am pleased. They are great staff. If I could I would give them an award." "The carers are lovely, they do just what you want". "The staff really care, nothing is too much trouble for them." Two people made comparisons with former care services saying there had been considerable improvements.

Is the service responsive?

A copy of the complaints procedure had been included with the care information left in people's homes. The procedure stated how complaints would be managed. We found that complaints had been recorded and investigated in line with the complaints policy of the service. Complainants were always advised in writing of the outcome of complaints. We saw instances where apologies had been made and changes had been made to improve the service.

When people's health needs had changed health professionals had been contacted. Their advice had been sought, recorded and actioned.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. The system included listening to people who used the service, their relatives and staff. There was a pro-active approach to complaints made about the service. The provider sought the views of people and consistently reviewed the service in response to the views expressed by people.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They told us they could speak to a senior member of staff at any time including the on-call manager after hours. Regular supervision had been provided for all staff. We saw examples during our visit of good open communication between office staff and support workers who all visited the office each week. A staff member said, "We have really good support. There have been changes to staff, including office staff and the staffing is now good."

We completed this inspection to see if the required improvements had been made. During this inspection we spoke with four people who used the service or their relatives, four members of staff and the registered manager. People told us they were happy with the care. One person said, 'I'm generally very happy. The carers are very good and helpful'. One person's relative said, 'I would recommend them to anyone, they are very good to X'.

We found that people received care that had been assessed and planned for and there was a review system in place which enabled the service to be responsive to changes in people's needs.

People told us that their care and medication needs were met in a caring and professional manner. This was because staff had completed training to enable them to meet people's needs safely.

Effective systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the care provided. Where problems were identified, plans were put in place to make improvements.

The service was well led because significant improvements to quality had been made. However further improvements to people's care records are required, to ensure that effective systems are in place to protect people from receiving inconsistent or unsafe care.

During our inspection we spoke to five people who used the service, or their relatives. People told us they were happy with the care that they or their relative had received. Comments included, 'Some staff go the extra mile when dealing with my relative' and, 'The carers are great'.

People told us they were involved in the planning of their care and were treated with dignity and respect.

We saw that some people did not always get care that was assessed and planned for and some people's risks or changes to their needs were not always effectively assessed or managed. This meant some people may not have received care that met their needs.

We found that people were protected from the risks of abuse because staff were aware of the signs of abuse and the correct local reporting procedures.

We saw that some staff were not up to date with essential training and effective systems were not in place for the safe administration and recording or medicines.

Effective systems were not in place to ensure that the quality of the service was assessed and monitored and reportable incidents were not always reported to us.