You are here

Archived: Mears Homecare Limited - Nottingham Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2016

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 4, 8 and 9 August 2016. Mears Homecare Limited Nottingham is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing the regulatory activity of personal care to 330 people.

A manager was in place and has been in post since May 2016. They were not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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. An application for the manager to become registered has been received by the CQC. We will monitor the progress of the application.

Some people told us they were not satisfied with the punctuality of the staff, which could indicate sufficient staffing levels were not in place. Others told us the failure of staff to arrive on time sometimes made them feel unsafe. A new electronic monitoring system has been introduced to reduce the impact of this on people. People told us they did feel safe when the staff supported them within their homes.

The assessments of the risks people faced were not always completed in sufficient detail which increased the risk of people experiencing avoidable harm. Accidents and incidents were investigated, however the manager felt the number of reports received from staff did not reflect the size of the service. People told us their medicines were managed safely, however people’s medicines records were not always appropriately completed. A new competency assessment has been introduced by the manager to assist with reducing the number of medicines errors and improving staff performance.

Staff completed an induction prior to commencing their role and received regular supervision of their work. Staff felt supported by the manager and received regular training to enable them to support people effectively. People told us they did not always receive the same staff at their home.

The manager was aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005); however the principles were not followed correctly when decisions were made for people.

Some people were supported with their food and drink and we found that care records did not always contain sufficient guidance on how to support people with their diet who were living with diabetes.

People’s day to day health needs were met by the staff, however the records used to support staff in doing so lacked detail and could increase the risk to people’s health. People told us where needed, staff supported them with contacting their GP or other healthcare professional.

People told us they thought the staff were kind and caring, treated them with respect and dignity and listened to and acted on their wishes. People felt able to contribute to decisions about their care. People’s independence was supported.

Staff discussed people’s needs with them prior to them starting to use the service. People’s care records had elements of person centred care. This included daily routines for staff to support people in the way they wanted them to. People’s care needs were reviewed.

People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint. Some people felt their complaints were handled appropriately, however others did not. We saw a high volume of complaints were received in a two month period, April to May 2016 with regards to staff punctuality. This had improved in June and July 2016. The majority of complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s complaints policy, but we saw one had not been.

There had been a high turnover of managers at the service in the past 12 months. The current manager told us they wished to remain at the service and explained the processes they had in place to improve the

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

Some people told us they were not satisfied with the punctuality of the staff, which could indicate staffing levels were not adequate.

A new electronic monitoring system has been introduced to reduce the impact of this on people. People told us they did feel safe when the staff supported them within their homes.

The assessments of the risks people faced were not always completed in sufficient detail.

Accidents and incidents were investigated, although there were concerns staff were not always reporting incidents to the manager.

People told us their medicines were managed safely, however people�s medicines records were not always appropriately completed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

The manager was aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005); however these principles were not followed correctly when decisions were made for people.

Some people were supported with their food and drink and we found that care records did not always contain sufficient guidance on how to support people with their diet who were living with diabetes.

People�s day to day health needs were met by the staff, however the records used to support staff in doing so lacked detail and could increase the risk to people�s health.

People told us where needed, staff supported them with contacting their GP or other healthcare professional.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 September 2016

The service was caring.

People told us they thought the staff were kind and caring, treated them with respect and dignity and listened to and acted on their wishes.

People felt able to contribute to decisions about their care.

People�s independence was supported.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2016

The service was not consistently responsive.

People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint. Some people felt their complaints were handled appropriately, however others did not.

The majority of complaints were responded to in line with the provider�s complaints policy, but we saw one had not been.

Staff discussed people�s needs with them prior to them starting to use the service. People�s care records had elements of person centred care which included daily routines for staff to support them in the way that people wanted them to. People�s care needs were reviewed.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 September 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

There had been a high turnover of managers at the service in the past 12 months. Some people told us they did not know who the current manager was.

People told us they had been asked for their views on the quality of the service provided, but some felt it would result in little improvement.

The manager was respected by their staffing team and they understood their responsibility to ensure the CQC were notified of incidents that had occurred.