Archived: Mayfair Homecare - Hounslow

Mayfair Homecare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults, some living with the experience of dementia, people with learning disabilities and people with mental health needs. Most people funded their care through direct payments. At the time of our inspection 43 people were using the service. Mayfair Homecare Hounslow is a branch of Sevacare, a private organisation which has multiple domiciliary care agency locations around England.

The provider had been planning to close the Hounslow location in July 2018 as one of their contracts had ended. Due to a significant number of people using the service requesting to remain with Mayfair, in September 2018, they made the decision to continue providing a service and to remain open.

The service had a registered manager. 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. At the time of the inspection, the registered manager was on maternity leave and a colleague from within their team was covering the post in their absence.

During the inspection we found risk management plans did not always have clear guidance for staff to follow to minimise possible risks to people using the service. Audits did not effectively identify this.

The support plans did not record any information around people’s wishes, views and thoughts about end of life care but the service manager said this would be addressed.

Care workers had relevant training, were able to identify the types of abuse and knew how to respond to any safeguarding concerns.

There were enough care workers employed to meet the needs of the people using the service. They had the relevant training, supervision and appraisals to develop the necessary skills to support people. There were safe recruitment systems in place to ensure care workers were suitable to work with people using the service.

The provider had systems to ensure people received the medicines they needed safely and as prescribed.

Care workers had access to personal protective equipment and infection control training.

The provider assessed people’s care needs and recorded their preferences about how they received care and support.

When it was part of their support plan, care workers supported people to maintain a balanced diet.

People’s support plans included information about their health needs, and where required, people were supported to access appropriate healthcare services to maintain their health and wellbeing.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed. Care and support was provided with people’s consent or in their agreed best interests.

People using the service were happy with the care they received and were involved in making decisions about their care. People told us they had the same care workers and this provided consistency of care.

People told us care workers treated them with kindness and respect.

People using the service said they received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Reviews were completed annually or as and when required.

The provider had a procedure for responding to any complaints they received. People had information on how to make a complaint and knew how to if they needed to.

The service had systems in place to monitor, manage and improve service delivery. This included a complaints system, audits and care worker observations

People using the service and care workers told us the managers were accessible and responded to any concerns raised.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to risk management. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The last inspection took place on 31 July 2014 and was rated Good.

Sevacare is a domiciliary care agency that provides care to people in their own homes. Additionally the service supports people with shopping, preparing meals and cleaning. At the time of the inspection, 139 people used the service.

The service had a registered manger. The registered manager had just been promoted and was preparing the deputy manager to become the registered manager. 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.

The service had not always assessed people’s capacity to consent to care and treatment and we saw several care plans where family members had signed on behalf of the person using the service although there was no indication that the person was unable to sign the care plan.

People who used the service told us they felt safe. The service had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place and staff were aware of how to respond to any safeguarding concerns.

Risk assessments were completed to identify and manage risk.

Medicines were managed safely.

There was an adequate number of staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

People were happy with the level of support they received and told us they were involved in their day to day care decisions.

Care workers had inductions, supervision, appraisals and relevant training to support the people who used the service.

Stakeholders we spoke with said the manager was accessible and responsive. Care workers told us they felt supported by their managers.

The service had a number of effective systems in place to monitor and manage service delivery and staff performance. There was a complaints system and people felt able to raise concerns. Overall, feedback from stakeholders was positive.

During our inspection we spoke with ten people, three relatives, twelve staff members and the assistant manager. All people confirmed that the care delivered by the agency was very good and met their needs. One person said, 'I receive the best care'. A relative said. 'l am happy with the care my father receives'.

People told us that they were involved with their care planning from the time they started to use the agency. They told us their care was continuously reviewed with their involvement and consent.

Most people told us that they felt respected by staff. One person said, 'The staff show me respect always'.

People told us that staff were usually on time and that a regular staff member provided their care. When their regular staff were unavailable, the people we spoke with said the agency contacted them to check if it was acceptable to send someone else.

We viewed summarised feedback from a user satisfaction survey, which showed that most people using the agency were happy with the support and care they received from the agency.

Staff we spoke with told us that they were supported by the agency to develop their role fully. Comments from staff included, 'We feel very supported', and,' The office staff are always available if we have questions'.

People told us that they knew how to make a complaint and said that they felt able to raise any concerns that they had without fear. During our inspection they were no open complaints to the service.

We found that the agency had good systems in place to manage their records. People's personal information was well protected