You are here

Mencap - West Hampshire Domiciliary Care Agency Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Mencap - West Hampshire Domiciliary Care Agency. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 May 2011
Date of Publication: 27 July 2011
Inspection Report published 27 July 2011 PDF | 130.1 KB

Contents menu

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 09/05/2011, reviewed information from people who use the service, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

Although people experienced individual, appropriate care and support that met their needs, the care records were not always up to date to ensure they accurately reflected their current needs. On the basis of the evidence provided and the views of the people using the service we found the service to be compliant but, to maintain this, we suggested that some improvements were made.

User experience

All of the people surveyed by the agency stated they were either happy or very happy with the care they received. Ten out of twelve people stated that they were aware of their support plan. Most people stated that they are encouraged to make choices for themselves and that the support was provided to them when needed.

We spoke with a number of relatives. Although they were happy with the service provided by Mencap, some expressed concern about the change in the Mencap contract when it was reviewed by Southampton City Council and a new provider was awarded some of the support hours. Relatives told us they were unhappy with the new provider as they believed the quality and quantity of the support provided to their son or daughter had deteriorated. Several people surveyed wrote additional comments on their survey form about how they would like more support to be provided to them. One person wrote they were not happy with the restructure.

One relative told us they were very happy with the care their relative received and stated it was ‘a brilliant set up’ where their relative lived.

Other evidence

Staff told us that care was well planned so that people received a flexible but consistent service that reflected their individual needs. Staff told us that they hold three monthly reviews with people to discuss their goals and achievements and any changes to their support.

Staff told us that changes to peoples’ needs were dealt with promptly and communicated well amongst the team so that they always knew if a person’s needs had changed before they visited them.

Care files that we viewed were detailed and written in a person centred way. Support plans described the level of support needed and what the person was able to do for themselves. The plans were signed and dated. Risk assessments and behavioural plans were also in place.

The service operates a key working system and each person receiving support has an allocated key worker. Staff spoken with told us they hold three monthly reviews to discuss with the person their support plan and any changes. The records viewed showed in some cases people’s needs had not been reviewed on a three monthly basis. We saw some support plans and risk assessments that had not been reviewed for a considerable amount of time. Three support plans dated back to 2009 with no evidence of a review. We spoke with the new area manager as part of the compliance review. The area manager told us that she had visited the main office and seen that some care records had not been updated and told us that action was being taken to ensure the care records were brought up to date.