You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 April 2018

This inspection was carried out between 26 February and 7 March 2018 and was announced. Two days’ notice of the inspection was given because we needed to be sure that people who wanted to speak to us were available during the inspection.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults, older adults, people living with dementia or mental health needs, physically disabled people and people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. There were 141 people receiving a service from MiHomecare Ramsgate at the time of our inspection. One person told us, “The job staff do, actually enables me to stay in my own home”.

The registered manager had been working at the service since November 2016 and was registered with the Care Quality Commission CQC) shortly before our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 25 November 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the way they supported staff, assessed and mitigated risks, and ensured that information within care plans reflected people's assessed needs and preferences. At this inspection we found that all the shortfalls had been addressed and the service that people received had improved.

Everyone we spoke with told us the staff were kind, caring and friendly, and treated them with dignity and respect at all times. They told us staff knew them well and provided their care in the way they wanted. People were given privacy. Everyone was supported to be as independent as they wanted to be. People received care in the way they preferred at the end of their life from staff and health professionals.

People’s medicines were well managed. Guidance was available to staff and people received their medicines as their healthcare professional had prescribed. Changes in people’s health were identified quickly and staff supported people to contact their doctor. People were supported to eat and drink enough. Staff followed safe practices to prevent infections.

People received care tailored to them. Assessments of people’s needs and any risks had improved since our last inspection. Guidance was now available to staff about how to keep people safe and provide each person’s care in the way they preferred. Staff supported people to take part in leisure activities they liked.

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. Everyone was able to make decisions for themselves and staff supported them to do this. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and had checked to make sure no one was deprived of their liberty.

Staff knew the signs of abuse and were confident to raise any concerns they had with the registered manager. People and their representatives told us they were confident to raise any concerns they had with staff and that these would be acted on. Complaints received were investigated and responded to. Action was taken to prevent them occurring again.

Staff arrived at the agreed time and stayed for the required length of time. People told us they knew if staff would be late and who would provide their care. Staff rotas were planned in advance and any gaps were covered. Staff were recruited safely and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) criminal records checks had been completed. Staff were supported to meet people’s needs and had completed the training they needed to fulfil their role. Checks were completed to make

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 April 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people had been identified and staff supported people to be as independent and safe as possible.

People were protected from the risks of unsafe medicines management.

Staff knew how to keep people safe if they were at risk of abuse or discrimination.

Action was taken to stop accidents and incidents happening again.

There were enough staff who knew people well, to provide the care people needed.

Staff practice prevented and controlled infection.

Checks were completed on staff to make sure they were honest, trustworthy and reliable before they worked alone with people.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 April 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed with them when necessary.

Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to make their own decisions.

Staff were supported and had the skills they required to provide the care and treatment people needed.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to help keep them as healthy as possible.

People were supported to remain healthy.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 April 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring to people and reassured them if they were worried.

People were given privacy and were treated with dignity and respect.

People were supported to be independent and have control over their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People had planned their care with staff. They received their care and support in the way they preferred.

People participated in leisure activities they enjoyed.

Any concerns people had were resolved to their satisfaction.

People were supported to plan the care they preferred at the end of their life.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 April 2018

The service was well-led.

Checks were completed on the quality of the service and action was taken to remedy any shortfalls.

People, their relatives and staff shared their views and experiences of the service and these were acted on.

Staff shared the provider�s vision of a good quality service.

Staff were motivated and led by the registered manager. They had clear roles and responsibilities and were accountable for their actions.

Staff worked with other agencies to ensure people�s needs were met.