Archived: Maria Care Services

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you would like to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found the service had undertaken the relevant pre-employment checks required for those new staff it employed. However, written information relating to the outcome of the interviews was inconsistent in practice. We fed this back to the provider to address.

We found that Disclosure and Barring Service Checks (DBS) were undertaken and the service had a system in place to ensure new staff were supported by an appropriately checked member of staff pending this clearance.

Is the service effective?

We saw the service had a formal induction programme and a shadowing process. However, we found no documentation confirming what shadowing staff had undertaken in line with the service's own policy. We fed this back to the provider and office manager. A compliance action has been issued in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

We saw the service completed formal staff supervision and spot check supervision. All staff we spoke with felt well supported. We saw appraisals in place for those staff employed before April of this year.

We reviewed the training for the service and found only 13% of staff were current with their medication training and 55 % of staff were up to date with food hygiene. The remaining staff had not received any training regarding food hygiene. We fed this back to the provider and office manager. A compliance action has been issued in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

We found the provider had addressed the areas of non compliance. They had reviewed their medicines policy and included guidance about administering and recording of medicines. Records showed staff had received the necessary supervision to ensure as part of the supporting staff arrangements, staff received the necessary support to undertake their role effectively and professionally. We were satisfied the provider had addressed the non compliance and were now compliant in these areas.

People told us they felt able to raise any concerns or complaints with the staff or management and that they were confident to voice any concerns.

People told us that the service was flexible and that "nothing was too much trouble". People said that they would recommend the service to anyone.

Staff told us about the training they had received so that they would be able to recognise abuse and how to report it.

Spot checks regularly completed by the agency reviewed staff timeliness and presentation whilst ensuring their conduct respected client's choice, dignity and confidentiality.

People who use the service were provided with a "Commitment to Care" booklet which gave information on "privacy, choices and control." Each client had access to their individual folder which incorporated a "Statement of Purpose, Service User Guide, Health and Safety information and a complaints policy and form.

Recruitment procedures were not consistently being followed with gaps in obtaining suitable employee references identified. We were informed by staff of training being completed but we found limited evidence within the training records. Records showed, and staff confirmed that they did not receive regular supervision or appraisals.

We found that people were not fully protected against the risks associated with the administration of medicines because there were shortfalls in the way medication was being recorded.

Staff told us that they were well supported by management and were able to raise any queries or concerns with them.