You are here

Merseycare Julie Ann Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 February 2018

This unannounced comprehensive inspection was carried out on 11, 12, 13 and 14 December 2017.

Merseycare Julie Ann is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to approximately 700 people living in their own homes across Liverpool.

A registered manager, who had worked for the organisation for many years, was in post. 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.

We last inspected the service in October 2016 and gave it an overall rating of ‘requires improvement’. On that inspection we a breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We found that risk management plans in people’s care files were not sufficiently detailed to inform staff and some files contained conflicting information about risk.

During this inspection we found that the service had improved in this area and was no longer in breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We saw that people’s risk assessments were reviewed regularly and care files contained the information staff needed to safely manage these risks.

Medication was correctly administered and recorded by staff who had appropriate training and experience. The staff we spoke with told us that they were confident managing people’s medication and people received the right medication at the right times. The people we spoke with told us that they received their medication correctly and when they needed it.

The service had robust systems in place to protect people from abuse and staff demonstrated a good understanding of this when we spoke with them. They were able to demonstrate the actions they would take in the event of a person being at risk of harm. We saw that safeguarding concerns were promptly and effectively managed by the Safeguarding and Complaints Manager, with oversight from the registered manager.

Staff were safely recruited and were supported with an induction process. Criminal records checks, known as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) records, were carried out. We also saw that official identification, such as a passport or driving licence and verified references from the most recent employers were also kept in staff files.

Staff training records were up-to-date and there was a clear system to document and plan staff training. We saw that all staff had received training relevant to their roles.

All new staff took part in an induction process. This included a period of office-based training and shadowing an experienced member of staff. During the induction process staff were introduced to the people they would be visiting regularly and they were not allowed to start working on their own until their mentor had assessed them as competent to do so.

The majority of staff had received timely supervisions and appraisals. A small number of staff were not up-to-date with their supervisions but the registered manager had a plan in place to address this. We were also reassured by the fact that all staff, including staff whose supervisions were overdue, told us that they felt well-supported working for the service. They received an appropriate level of supervision and had regular contact with their line managers.

People we spoke with told us that they received care from regular staff who were caring, knew them well and whom they trusted. Some people said that sometimes alternative carers attended when their regular carers were unable to do so. They said that they preferred their regular carers but the standard of care remained good.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and to report on what we find. We saw t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 February 2018

The service was safe.

The service had robust systems in place to protect people from abuse.

Risk assessments were reviewed regularly and care files contained the information staff needed to safely manage these risks.

Staff were safely recruited.

Medication was safely administered and recorded by staff who had appropriate training and experience.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 February 2018

The service was effective.

The majority of staff had received timely supervisions and appraisals.

Staff were given appropriate training and induction to effectively meet people�s needs.

The service ensured that people consented to the care they received.

People's rights were protected by staff that had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 February 2018

The service was caring.

People told us the staff were caring and they had good relationships with them.

People's rights to privacy and dignity were respected.

The service supported people to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 February 2018

People�s care plans were person-centred and gave staff the information they needed to deliver personalised care.

People knew how to complain and the service dealt with complaints appropriately.

People told us staff were responsive to their needs.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 February 2018

The service was well-led.

There was experienced and strong leadership at the service with clear accountability.

There was a positive and caring culture amongst staff at the service.

Suitable audits and checks were in place and were identifying areas of improvement.

There were systems in place to gather feedback about the quality of the care being provided.