• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Research House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Fraser Road, Perivale, Greenford, Middlesex, UB6 7AQ (020) 8537 3256

Provided and run by:
MNA Home Care Services Limited

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

All Inspections

22 August 2016

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of Research House on 22, 23 and 24 August 2016. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service for people in their own homes and staff might be out visiting people.

MNA Home Care Services provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support for 505 people across the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Harrow.

We previously inspected Research House on18 February 2014 and the provider had met all the regulations that were inspected.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in place. 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.

People told us they felt safe when they received support and the provider had policies and procedures in place to deal with any concerns that were raised about the care provided.

The provider had processes in place for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents. A range of risk assessments were in place in the support folders in relation to the care being provided.

The provider had an effective recruitment process in place. There was a policy and procedure in place for the administration of medicines.

The provider had policies, procedures and training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and care workers were aware of the importance of supporting people to make choices.

Care workers had received training identified by the provider as mandatory to ensure they were providing appropriate and effective care for people using the service. Also care workers had regular supervision with their manager and received an annual appraisal.

People we spoke with felt the care workers were caring and treated them with dignity and respect while providing care. Care plans identified the person’s cultural and religious needs.

Detailed assessments of the person’s needs were carried out before the person started to receive care in their own home. Each person had a care plan in place which described their support needs. Care workers completed a record of the care and support provided during each visit.

The provider had a complaints process in place and people knew what to do if they wished to raise any concerns.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the care provided and these provided appropriate information to identify issues with the quality of the service.

18 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 24 people using the service or their representatives, the registered manager, Operations Manager and Quality Assurance Manager. We also contacted 17 care workers by phone or email. Most people told us they were happy with the care and support they received. Their comments included “the carers are absolutely fine” and "my carer is excellent, she knows exactly what help I need.”

However, five people told us they had problems with the service they received. One person commented “the carer is good but they are often very late.” Another person said “we have not had a good experience. Even when we complained and were told things would be sorted out, the agency didn’t do what they said they would to improve things.”

We looked at the care plans for ten people using the service. We saw people’s care plans detailed their needs and the support their care workers should provide.

The provider had policies and procedures for safeguarding people using the service. Care workers understood the procedures and were trained to identify possible abuse.

We looked at the personnel files for 10 care workers and saw the provider carried out appropriate checks before care workers started to work with people using the service.

There were procedures in place for monitoring the standards of service provided.

1 March 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found at our previous visit 26 June 2012 that the systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service were not sufficient to ensure that people were protected against the risks of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care.

We requested the provider send us a report detailing how improvements would be made. We were told by the provider and local authority prior to our visit that people's care needs had not always been met which placed people at risk of receiving care which was unsafe.

We found at our visit the service had learnt from the incidents that had occurred and had implemented systems to ensure people's care needs were updated ensuring they received care which was appropriate and safe.

We also found that the service was carrying our regular monthly audits in areas such as staff training, care planning, staff supervision they were also completing audits in relation to comments and complaints.

26 June 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We visited five people in their homes and talked to 19 people or their relatives on the phone to get their views about the service they received. We also received feedback from seven members of staff.

Most people said their privacy and dignity was respected by staff and they were able to make choices about their care and support they received. Many of them said they were supported by their relatives in this process or relied on their social workers for support. Five people said they had asked the agency to let them know when their care workers changed but this had not always happened. The manager said that as far as possible people were kept informed of changes.

Most people said their individual needs were being met and they were satisfied with the care and support they received from their regular care workers. One person said, 'they have not let me down and if my usual care worker does not turn up they send someone else'. Another person said, 'I am happy with them'. Whilst, most people said staff were familiar with their physical care needs, two people reported that staff did not take into account their deafness and therefore did not communicate effectively with them.

All people we talked with said they understood what abuse was and they knew how to contact the agency if they had concerns about their safety or the care they received.

People told us the service carried out telephone surveys and yearly satisfaction surveys to find out whether people were satisfied with the service they received and if there were areas that needed to be improved. Many said they had contacted the agency if they had concerns or queries. Most said they were taken seriously and listened to but seven out of 24 people felt their concerns were not taken seriously.

10 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that their care was commissioned by a local authority and did not always get to choose the agency. People confirmed that they received an information pack when their needs were first assessed by the agency's staff. They said that they found the information pack useful and informative. For example they could find the necessary information about how to contact the offices of the agency. One person said 'I know how to contact the office, but I have had no need to do that'. Another said that 'the office staff always take your call seriously and deal with your queries promptly'

Most people that we spoke with told us that they were satisfied with the care and support that they received from their usual care worker. Some said that the replacement care workers, who attended to them when their usual care workers could not do the visits, did not know their needs and 'routine' so well. One person said that they had previously not received good care and support. This was resolved when a permanent care worker was allocated to them.

People were satisfied that they were involved in their care and in drawing up their care and support plans. Many people were able to tell us that head office staff visited them once yearly to review their care and to discuss the service. Some people told us that head office staff contacted them by phone to ask them about their care and support and some said that they had received satisfaction questionnaires to give their views on the quality of the service they received.