• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

2M Health & Home Care Services Ltd - Birmingham

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Office 4, 8 & 11 Sandwell Business Development Centre, Oldbury Road, Smethwick, B66 1NN (0121) 565 0220

Provided and run by:
2M Health & Home Care Services Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

About the service

2M Health Home Care Services is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the assessment, 149 people were in receipt of regulated activity and being supported by the service.

 

Who the service is for

2M Health Home Care Services provides support to younger adults, older adults, people living with dementia, people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and people living with sensory impairments.

 

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 5th August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Safeguarding systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse, staff understood their responsibility and were knowledgeable about different types of abuse and how and who they would report concerns to. Staff understood the process of recording accidents and incidents, including escalating concerns to leaders. Incident reports were regularly analysed to identify any themes or trends to improve people’s safety.

Incidents and safety concerns were recorded, and staff understood the importance of reporting and escalating issues. Incident reports were regularly reviewed, enabling learning to be shared and actions taken to improve people’s safety. Audits were completed regularly by leaders, with findings discussed in staff meetings to promote continuous learning and improvement across the service.

We checked and found staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions. They had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

The provider worked with people to identify strategies and equipment that would help them manage risks in a way that supported their independence and lifestyle choices. For example, some people at risk of falls chose to use pendant alarm systems, which enabled them to quickly access assistance if required and gave them confidence to continue living independently in their own homes. We also observed body maps used by staff when applying creams and emulsions, and fire risk assessments were in place for people prescribed paraffin-based products.

People received care and support from a consistent staff team who knew them well. This helped staff to recognise changes in people’s needs and respond promptly and effectively. Staff had received training and ongoing support from leaders to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and competence required to carry out their roles safely and effectively.

Medicines were managed safely, and staff received training in the administration of medicines. The provider used an electronic medication administration system which helped reduce the risk of missed medicines by generating alerts when doses had not been recorded. This supported the oversight of medicines.

People’s needs were assessed before care was provided, and care plans reflected people’s individual requirements, preferences and desired outcomes. Care plans were person centred and gave staff detailed guidance on how to deliver safe and effective support based on people’s assessed needs. A staff member said, “The clients I support have detailed care plans which I find easy to follow and helpful.” Another staff member said, “The care plans are very detailed, for example I go to a client that requires hoisting and all the details I need are found in the care plan.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and adapted care to meet individual circumstances and outcomes.

Staff received training, supervision and ongoing support to ensure care was delivered in line with current best practice.

People’s health and wellbeing were monitored, and concerns were escalated to healthcare professionals when required. The service worked towards achieving positive outcomes, supporting people to maintain their health and independence. Leaders used audits and quality assurance processes to evaluate performance and identify opportunities for improvement.

People were supported to remain as independent as possible and were encouraged to make decisions about their care and daily lives. Staff respected people’s choices and preferences and delivered care in a way that promoted choice, control and autonomy.

The culture of the service was open and supportive, with a focus on person-centred care and achieving positive outcomes for people. We received good feedback from staff regarding their experience of working at the service. Staff described feeling supported and spoke positively about working for the organisation, with one staff member saying, “the manager will listen to any concerns and is easy to talk with.” Another staff member told us, “management is respectful, provides helpful feedback and is very approachable.”

There were effective governance and oversight systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The service had arrangements in place for out-of-hours and on-call support staff could access in the event of emergencies.

7 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: 2M Health and Home Care Services Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to younger and older adults. At the time of inspection 13 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service: People told us they felt safe and were well-supported. One relative commented, “I trust the workers 101%” There were sufficient staff hours available to meet people's needs in a safe and consistent way, and staff roles were flexible to allow this. Staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse.

Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of people’s care and support needs. They received the training they needed and regular supervision and support. The service assisted people, where required, in meeting their health care and nutritional needs. Staff worked together, and with other professionals, in co-ordinating people’s care.

Staff had developed good relationships with people, were caring in their approach and treated people with kindness and respect.

Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines in a safe way. Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks.

People were involved in decisions about their care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Information was accessible to involve people in decision making about their lives.

There were opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give their views about the service. Processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns. The manager undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

Communication was effective and staff and people were listened to. Staff said they felt well-supported and were aware of their responsibility to share any concerns about the care provided.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated good (9 August 2016.)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained good.

Follow up: We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore re-inspect this service within the published timeframe for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.

18 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Our inspection was announced and took place on 18 July 2016.

This was our first inspection of this service since it had been registered with us on 11 November 2013. The provider did not deliver a personal care service until 2016. Therefore an inspection had not been needed earlier.

The provider is registered to provide personal care and support to adults of a variety of ages including older people. People who used the service received their support and care in their own homes within the community. Fifteen people received personal care and support on the day. People had needs that related to old age and/or a physical disability and mild dementia.

The manager was registered with us as is required by law and was present on the day. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

The provider had not gathered all of the required information to enable them to make a judgement about potential new staff to ensure that they would be suitable to work, and support, the people who used the service. Gaps in some staff employment history and the reasons they had left their previous employment had not always been explored to determine their suitability.

Medicine systems and medicine records needed some improvement so that people would be consistently assured that they would receive their medicine safely and as it had been prescribed by their doctor.

The provider had processes in place for staff to follow to prevent people experiencing any mistreatment or abuse. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns about abuse.

Risk assessments were undertaken and staff knew of these and what they needed to do to prevent any potential risk of accident and injury and keep people safe.

Staffing ensured that people were supported by staff that they were familiar with and knew their individual needs and wishes.

Staff received induction training and the day to day support they needed that ensured that they did their job safely and provided support in the way that people preferred. Staff had received the training they required to meet people’s needs in the way that they preferred and to keep them safe.

People were enabled to make decisions about their care and support and they and/or their families were involved in how their care was planned and delivered.

Staff understood that people have the right to refuse care and that they should not be unlawfully restricted.

Staff supported people to have drinks and meals that they enjoyed and knew how their meals should be served to prevent the risk of ill health.

People were cared for and supported by staff who were friendly and caring. Staff encouraged and supported people to be as independent as possible.

A complaints procedure was in place for people and their relatives to access if they were unhappy with any aspect of the service provision.

People, relatives and staff confirmed that the registered manager and the service provided was good. We saw that governance processes were used and that audits and spot checks of staff were conducted to ensure that the service ran as it should in the best interests of the people who used it.