- Homecare service
Merseycare Julie Ann Limited
Assessment report published 22 August 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment – 31 March to 10 April 2025. This was an unannounced assessment. Two site visits were conducted on the 31 and 2 April 2025. The assessment concluded on the 10 April 2025. Merseycare Julie Ann Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing support to people living in their own home. CQC only inspects where people receive the regulated activity personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.At the time of our assessment, 450 were in receipt of the personal care regulated by CQC. Some people using the service lived with autism or a learning disability. Although this service is not registered as a specialist service, we still assessed the service against ‘Right Culture, right care, right support’ guidance. This was to check if the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability or autism respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. This was a responsive assessment based on intelligence CQC held about the service and potential risk. During the assessment, 2 regulatory breaches were found in respect of safe care and treatment and good governance. People’s needs and risks were not properly assessed. Staff lacked accurate and sufficient information on how to mitigate risks and provide safe care. People’s care did not always adhere to best practice guidance and people’s records showed gaps in the care they received. People’s visits were not consistently scheduled or delivered. The provider had not ensured the deployment of staff maximised positive outcomes. Data showed a significant number of people’s visits were later or earlier than scheduled, which meant people had little assurance or certainty as to when their support would be provided. Governance arrangements to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not robust. The provider and management team did not have effective oversight of the service to ensure staff supported people safely, and in a way that met their needs. People’s preferences in how they would like their support to be provided was respected and care plans outlined the tasks people could do independently and what they needed help with. Where there were concerns about people’s capacity to make decisions, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed to ensure consent was legally obtained. Staff were recruited safely and had access to an appropriate induction and training. Some staff training needed to be refreshed but overall staff felt well trained and supported by the management team. The findings of the assessment were discussed with the management team. They were not always receptive to the feedback given, which raised concerns over the provider’s ability to listen, learn and improve the service. The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’. The service has been placed in ‘special measures’. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People raised concerns with regards to their visit times and the punctuality of staff. They told us the times of their visits were not always consistent or reliable. People told us this was worse when regular staff did not attend. This failure to provide consistent and reliable care placed people’s wellbeing at risk and exposed them to feelings of anxiety, frustration and a loss of control over their day to day lives. People said they were not informed when their visits would take place or which staff members would be supporting them, Thet did not get a rota or timetable to advise them of this. Some people told us when they raised concerns about the times of their visits, no positive changes were made to minimise their frustration and distress and visits continued to be disjointed and fragmented.
Most people felt staff had received sufficient training, but some raised concerns over the skills of some staff in meal preparation. One person told us some staff have “No idea how to prepare food like egg on toast or how to put the cooker on”. Another person said the same. A relative also raised concerns about the training and knowledge of staff in supporting people with health conditions such as Parkinson’s disease.
People told us staff were kind, caring, and respectful. They told us they helped them with the things they needed help with and treated them with dignity and respect. Comments included, “[Name of staff members] are amazing with him”; “Very, very happy with them (Staff); and the staff “Can’t do enough” for the person”.