You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 December 2018

The inspection took place on 14 and 16 November 2018 and was announced.

Millhouse SOS Homecare Limited, provides personal care for people aged 55 and over. This service provides care and support to people living in specialist 'extra care' housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant's own home. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support service. There were 14 people receiving personal care when we inspected.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this comprehensive inspection we have rated the service 'good' overall but rated the safe question as ‘requires improvement. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

A registered manager was in place. A 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.

People were very positive about the support they received from the service.

Staffing levels were sufficient to provide safe care and people were supported by a small and familiar staff team. Recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. We noted that records relating to reference checks could be more robust.

We found some shortfalls relating to medication records, which did not always contain sufficient detail. Records relating to risk did not always reflect the action that had been taken to mitigate risk. Where necessary people had equipment needed. Where we found concerns with records the registered manager was aware of them and had an action plan in place to address them.

Staff were trained and received ongoing support from the registered manager. However, work was being undertaken to ensure that staff supervisions and spot checks were carried out as frequently as required.

People's needs continued to be assessed before they started using the service and were reviewed to develop their care plans. People received appropriate support to meet their nutritional needs.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

The service promoted a culture of dignified and respectful care. People told us that were treated by staff who were kind and caring. They were involved in decisions about their care and the development and reviews of care plans. People had close and effective relationships with staff due to the small staff team.

People received care and support that was personal to their needs and was responsive to their changing needs. Each person had a care plan and in some cases. we found they lacked person centred details. However, staff were knowledgeable and had sufficient guidance to meet people’s individual needs.

People had regular contact with the management team, and reported no difficulties in raising any concerns about the service if necessary.

People were positive about the way the service was managed. The service continued to monitor and assess the quality of the service they were providing to people. Internal audits had highlighted some areas for improvement. We recommend the provider continues to monitor and evaluate the existing quality improvement initiatives until improvements are shown to be sustained and embedded in practice.

Staff said they felt supported but raised some concerns about the accessibility of the management team at times. The registered manager told

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

We found some shortfalls relating to medicines records.

Action had been taken to manage risks, but records were not always specific enough.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.

Systems and procedures were in place to safeguard people for harm and abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 December 2018

The service remains Good

Caring

Good

Updated 6 December 2018

The service remains Good

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 December 2018

The service remains Good

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 December 2018

The service remains Good.