You are here

Archived: Meadow Home Care Services Limited Requires improvement

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2016

Meadow Home Care Services is a domiciliary care agency which is registered to provide personal care support to people in their own homes. At the time of our visit the agency supported approximately 170 people with personal care and employed 72 care workers.

We visited the offices of Meadow Home Care Services on 27 January 2016. We had told the provider 48 hours before the visit we were coming so they could arrange for staff to be available to talk with us about the service. When we arrived at the location address 41 Warwick Road we found the service had moved. We went to the new location at the provider address. We had been informed by the provider they had moved the provider address to 8-10 Ulverley Green Road, Solihull, but had not been informed they had moved the location. This meant the provider was in breach of the condition of registration that allows them to operate from a specific location. The registered manager took immediate action to submit the required applications to us.

The information in this report relates to the service provided from the provider address at 8-10 Ulverley Green Road, Solihull and not the location, 41 Warwick Road as stated on the front of this report. The change of address had not affected the service provided by Meadow Home Care.

The service has 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.

Not all care workers had received the induction and training required to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. Care workers practice was not being checked to make sure they worked in line with the provider’s policies and procedures.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service and care workers understood how to protect people from abuse. There were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety; these included procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely. Checks were carried out prior to care workers starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service.

The managers had limited understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and their responsibilities under the Act.

Care workers respected people’s decisions and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care. People told us care workers were kind and caring.

There were enough care workers to provide care to people and most people had consistent care workers. People had different experiences about the times care workers arrived; most people received their care around the time expected. People said care workers stayed the agreed length of time and knew how they liked to receive their care.

Care plans and risk assessments contained relevant information for care workers to help them provide the care people required. People knew how to complain and were able to share their views and opinions about the service they received. Care workers were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the managers and felt they would be listened to.

There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided and understand the experiences of people who used the service. However, the registered manager and other manager’s in the service did not have sufficient knowledge and understanding of their regulatory responsibilities. The registered manager’s overview of the service was not sufficiently robust to ensure the service always operated effectively and safely.

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

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was safe.

Care workers understood their responsibility to keep people safe and to report any suspected abuse. There were procedures to protect people from risk of harm and care workers understood the risks relating to people’s care. There were enough care workers to provide the support people required. People received their medicines as prescribed and there was a thorough staff recruitment process.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

Not all care workers had completed the training required to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to deliver safe and effective care to people. The managers had limited knowledge and understanding of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The Service was caring.

People were supported by care workers who they considered kind and caring. Care workers ensured they respected people’s privacy and dignity, and promoted their independence. Most people received care and support from consistent care workers who understood their individual needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was responsive.

People received a service that was based on their individual needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed and care workers were given updates about changes in people’s care. People were able to share their views about the service and people knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

The managers of the service did not fully understand their regulatory responsibilities, and what was required of them. There were systems to monitor and review the quality of service people received, however the registered manager did not have a sufficiently robust overview of the service provided. People were, overall satisfied with the service they received. People and staff felt able to contact the office and speak to the management team if they needed to.