We carried out a review of the data available to us about Marygold Care UK Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Marygold Care UK Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Marygold Care UK Ltd is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 51 people using the service. Everyone using the service lived within the London Boroughs of Harrow and Hillingdon and had their service commissioned by the local authorities.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People’s experience of the service was positive. A relative of one person using the service told us, “We are very happy with the service. My relative feels safe. Staff have always turned up and they stay as long as they should.” This view of the service was repeated by everyone we spoke with.
People who used the service were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Care workers knew how to identify and report concerns. Where safeguarding concerns had been identified, the registered manager had taken appropriate action.
There were effective systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. The assessments provided information about how to support the people to ensure risks were reduced.
There were enough care workers deployed to keep people safe. They had been recruited safely. Pre-employment checks had been carried out.
Feedback indicated that there were no punctuality issues. However, we found there were limits to the service’s current monitoring system. The registered manager told us they would address this.
There were systems in place to ensure proper and safe use of medicines. People’s relatives told us people received their medicines on time.
People were protected from the risks associated with poor infection control because the service had processes in place to reduce the risk of infection and cross contamination.
There was a process in place to report, monitor and learn from accidents and incidents. Accidents were documented timely in line with the service’s policy and guidance.
There was an effective training system in place. Care workers demonstrated good knowledge and skills necessary for their role.
People’s health needs were met. The service worked with a range of professionals including GP, palliative care team and speech and language specialists.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s privacy was respected. Care plans described how people should be supported so that their privacy and dignity were upheld.
People received person centred care. Their assessments showed they had been involved in the assessment process. Care workers were knowledgeable about people’s needs. They could describe to us how people liked to be supported.
There was a complaints procedure in place, which people’s relatives were aware of. Quality assurance processes such as audits, spot checks, accidents and incidents, were used to drive improvements.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 20 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People told us they felt safe with the support they received from staff.
There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse.
There were safe recruitment procedures in place to help protect people from the risks of being cared for by staff assessed to be unfit or unsuitable.
Staff had received training in relevant areas of their work. This training enabled staff to support people effectively.
Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were involved in making decisions about their care and support and their consent was sought and documented. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice
People were supported to eat and drink in a safe manner. Their support plans included an assessment of their nutrition and hydration needs.
People were treated with dignity and respect. They told us staff knocked on their doors before they could enter their homes. Staff understood the need to protect people’s privacy and dignity.
The service encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and responded to them in a timely manner.
The provider had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service and people were asked for their opinions and action plans were developed where required to address areas for improvements.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 200 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’ The registered manager was on duty on the day of our inspection and we also met with one of the directors, who was also the owner of the domiciliary care agency.
People told us they felt safe with the support they received from staff. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to inform people who used the service and staff how to report potential or suspected abuse. Staff understood what constituted abuse and were aware of the steps to take to protect people.
People had risk assessments and risk management plans to reduce the likelihood of harm. The provider ensured there were safe recruitment procedures in place to help protect people from the risks of being cared for by staff assessed to be unfit or unsuitable.
Staff told us and we saw from their records that they had received training in relevant areas of their work. This training enabled staff to support people effectively.
Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us and we saw from their records they were involved in making decisions about their care and support and their consent was sought and documented.
People were supported to eat and drink in a safe manner. Their support plans included an assessment of their nutrition and hydration needs. People told us they chose what they ate and staff supported them with meals.
People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood the need to protect people’s privacy and dignity. People told us staff knocked on their doors before they could enter their homes.
The service encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and responded to them in a timely manner.
Staff gave positive feedback about the management of the service. The registered manager was approachable and fully engaged with providing good quality care for people who used the service. They encouraged a positive and open culture by being supportive to staff and by making themselves approachable with a clear sense of direction for the service.
The provider had systems in place to continually monitor the quality of the service and people were asked for their opinions and action plans were developed where required to address areas for improvements.