You are here

Maksanus Care Services Limited Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Maksanus Care Services Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Maksanus Care Services Limited on 29 November 2016 at which a breach of legal requirements was found. This was because the provider had not carried out quality assurance audits of care records nor analysed feedback received from people in order to improve the service.

On 1 March 2017 we undertook a focused inspection to check that the service had taken action in order to meet legal requirements.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the well led topic area. You can read the report of our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Maksanus Care Services Limited on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At our last inspection on 29 November 2016 we rated the home good in the four topic areas safe, effective, caring and responsive and good as the overall rating. The home was rated requires improvement in the well led topic area.

Maksanus Care Service Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own home. At the time of our inspection, there were 60 people living in the London Borough of Brent who received care from the agency.

The service has a registered manager. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our focused inspection on 1 March 2017, we found that the provider had taken action to ensure that legal requirements were met. A system for reviewing records and monitoring quality of the service had been developed. Monitoring reviews had taken place during January and February 2017. However we were unable to identify whether actions had been put in place in respect of issues identified through this monitoring. This meant that we needed to see a track record of improvement over time in order to change the rating for well led from requires improvement.

The results of a recent service user satisfaction survey had been analysed and an action plan put in place to address any concerns. We saw that progress had been made towards completing the actions identified within the plan.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was safe.

Risk assessment had not been carried out in full for some people. After the inspection, the registered manager sent us the completed risk assessments.

Most staff knew the different types of abuse and who to report abuse to. Two staff were not aware of the safeguarding procedures.

People and relatives told us they felt safe around staff.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were fit to undertake their roles and there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people's needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was effective.

The management team understood and applied the principles of the MCA. There was a decision making section on people’s care plans. Care plans documented if people were able to make decisions.

Staff asked for consent from people before providing personal care. People and relatives confirmed this.

Staff told us and records confirmed that they received supervision and were supported.

Staff had received an induction. Records showed that staff had undertaken mandatory training, which included first aid, moving and handling, health and safety, risk assessments and food and hygiene. Staff had also undertaken training in specialist areas such as dementia awareness.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was caring.

People and relative told us that staff were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff had good knowledge and understanding of people’s background and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans included people's care and support needs and staff followed these plans.

There was a complaint system in place. Staff were able to tell us how they would respond to complaints. Records showed complaints had been investigated and action had been taken.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 April 2017

Aspects of the service were not well led. Although a quality monitoring system had been introduced, the forms used did not include comments or actions in relation to quality issues.

An action plan had been put in place to address issues arising from a recent satisfaction survey.

Quality assurance issues had been discussed at staff and management team meetings.