You are here

Archived: Moorlands Home Link Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 28 September 2016

This inspection visit took place on 18 August 2016 and was announced. The provider was given notice of our inspection visit to ensure the executive manager and care staff were available when we visited the agency’s office.

The service was last inspected in July 2013 when we found the provider was compliant with the essential standards described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

Moorlands Home Link is a domiciliary care agency with charitable status providing care for people in their own homes. Around half of the people who used the service received weekly support with bathing, other people received support with personal care through several visits each day. On the day of our inspection visit the agency was providing support to 45 people and employed 13 members of care staff.

The charity also provided a number of other services in the community. These included a friendship and support service to people who were elderly or needed support to go out. A day centre run in a local community centre, meals on wheels, transport arrangements via minibuses and trained volunteers.

The service did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection visit. 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. As there was no registered manager in post at the time of our visit we spoke to the executive manager and the acting manager, who were managing the service in the absence of a registered manager.

The provider had recently changed their company status which came into effect in 2015. However, the provider had not re-registered their service with CQC when their legal status changed. This meant the provider was operating under an out of date registration with us. We have asked the provider to register their service under their new legal status without delay.

Processes to manage the risks to people’s safety required improvement. Care records did not provide staff with enough information to consistently identify and manage risks associated with people’s care. Medicine procedures required improvement to ensure care staff recorded the administration of all prescribed medicines.

Care records were not sufficiently up to date to provide staff with the information they needed to ensure people received consistent care. The executive manager had conducted a recent audit on care records and identified a need to update all care records, using a new format which gave staff more information on the needs of people they cared for. New care records were being introduced over the next four months.

There were systems to monitor and review the quality of service people received and to understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was through regular communication with people and staff, surveys, spot checks on care staff and a programme of other checks and audits. Where issues had been identified, the executive and acting manager were implementing improvements. However, auditing procedures were not always sufficiently detailed to ensure issues for improvement were identified. For example, auditing procedures had not highlighted the need to record all the medicines administered to people.

People told us they felt safe using the service. Care staff understood how to protect people from abuse and keep people safe. The character and suitability of care staff was checked during recruitment procedures to make sure, as far as possible, they were safe to work with people who used the service.

There were enough care staff to deliver the care and support people required. People told us care staff usually arrived around the time expected and stayed long enough to complete the care people required. People told us c

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

Risk management plans were not always in place to manage identified risks to people. Medicine procedures required improvement to ensure people received all their prescribed medicines. People felt safe with care staff. Care staff understood their responsibility to keep people safe and to report any suspected abuse. There were enough care staff to provide the support people required and there was a thorough staff recruitment process.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was effective.

Care staff completed training and were supervised to ensure they had the right skills and knowledge to support people effectively. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and care staff respected decisions people made about their care. People who required assistance with their nutritional needs received support to prepare food and drink, and people were supported to access healthcare services.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by care staff who they considered kind and who respected people’s privacy and promoted their independence. People received care and support from regular care staff that understood their individual needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and how they wanted to be supported. People’s care needs were assessed and people received a service that was based on their personal preferences. People knew how to make a complaint. The management team responded to feedback and acted to improve the service.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

There was no registered manager at the service to ensure people were supported in accordance with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations. The provider had failed to notify us of specific events at the service, according to their regulatory responsibility. The provider's registration status required updating to ensure they were registered appropriately. People told us management procedures could be improved, to ensure they always received their scheduled calls. People told us they knew who to contact in the office if they needed to speak with a manager. The management team supported staff to do their work, as they were available when needed.