You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 29 September 2016

During a routine inspection

This comprehensive inspection took place on 29 September 2016. We gave notice three days beforehand to ensure the registered manager would be available. We last inspected the service in December 2013 and found that it was meeting the regulations.

Melton Court provides housekeeping services, which CQC does not regulate, to the owners of the flats there. Six of these owners also receive personal care in their flats, such as assistance with showering and bathing. We inspected this personal care service only.

The registered manager responsible for the personal care service had worked at Melton Court for a number of years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People were pleased with the service they received. They told us staff knew them well, had a good understanding of the care they needed and provided this effectively, in an unhurried manner. Comments included: “The whole place makes us feel safe”, “They are experienced, they really know what needs doing” and “We can’t sing its praises enough – everybody’s so caring”. People told us that staff arrived when expected and stayed for the right length of time.

Some people were assisted with prescribed medicines, including skin creams. There was a safe system for administering and recording medicines, including regular staff training, to ensure that people had their medicines as prescribed.

Staff had the right skills and knowledge to provide people’s care. Safe recruitment procedures ensured that people were supported by staff with the appropriate experience and character to work in a caring role with older people. The staff had worked in the service for several years. They had regular refresher training in key topics; this was mostly provided through distance learning. They were also supported through supervision meetings with a line manager, at which they discussed their work and any training needs they had.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being provided. Managers visited people regularly to discuss their experience of the service, as well as having informal ad hoc conversations with them. Staff had spot checks periodically, where managers observed them at work and checked they were following the correct procedures. There was also an annual quality assurance survey sent out to people who used the service. The feedback from the last survey in January 2016 had been positive. Where people had expressed any uncertainty about aspects of the service, such as how best to contact the office, this had been followed up. There had been no complaints about the service since our last inspection.

Inspection carried out on 31 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people that used the agency, two carers and the Registered Manager during our inspection. All of the people we spoke with said that they felt safe using the agency and knew what to do if they had any concerns. They told us that they had all been visited by one of the duty managers recently to review the care they were receiving and to check if there were any issues. One person told us "I get the help that I want and it's all going well". Another person said that the care staff were all "very friendly and listen to you". These comments reflected the overall feedback we received from people using the agency.

We saw that other elements of people's files had signatures to indicate consent had been given. This meant before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We looked at the support plans for four people who use the services of the agency. Care plans were held by the individual person with a copy held in the office. People told us that agency staff followed their care plans closely.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. None of the people we spoke with said they had needed to raise any formal complaints.

Inspection carried out on 10 December 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of this unannounced inspection, twelve people received personal care provided by Melton Court of whom seven had daily care.

During the inspection we used various methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. In addition to speaking with three people who used services we gathered evidence by reviewing records and speaking with the duty manager and two care staff. The registered manager was not present on the day of the inspection. We looked at care records held by the people we spoke with.

People�s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs. We found that people�s needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with their care plans. People told us that the staff were helpful and that they felt safe with them. For example, one person said �the staff are all very nice. I feel safe here.�

Staff were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and these were acted on.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

Inspection carried out on 24 August 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Melton Court unannounced on 24 August 2012. We did not speak with people who use the service on this occasion as we were following up on specific areas from previous inspections.

We spoke with the manager and looked at records in relation to infection control and medicines.

We saw that following our previous inspections that the shortfalls been addressed. There were infection control systems and policies in place. All staff had their own plastic wipe clean box for transporting gloves and aprons and the infection control policy was displayed in the staff room.

There were systems in place for recording the application of prescribed creams and the administration of eye drops. The administration of any medicines was audited weekly and action taken if any issues were identified.

Inspection carried out on 29 November 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At this visit we found that people continued to receive help with their medicines from the agency. This included help with taking tablets prescribed by their doctor, help with administering eye drops and help with applying creams.

We did not talk to people who use the service during this inspection as we had talked with people at our previous visits in March and October 2011.

Inspection carried out on 11 October 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We talked with five people who received support with administering their medicines or creams from the service. Some of these people also received support with other aspects of their personal care.

People spoke positively about the staff who visited them, telling us that staff were pleasant and courteous.

Most of the people we visited told us that they had observed staff washing their hands before helping them with their personal care needs. We also heard that staff carried equipment with them such as gloves and hand gel which they used when carrying out their tasks.

People told us that staff assisted them with their medicines in a variety of ways. These included reminding them to take their medicine, administering their medicine for them and applying creams to their legs.

One person told us that they had asked for help with administering eye drops which staff now did for them. They told us that, as a result of receiving this help, their condition had improved. They told us that they had noted that some staff did things differently to others when administering their eye drops. They were not sure why this was.

Another person told us that maintaining their independence in administering their own medicine was important to them. They told us that staff reminded them each day to take their tablet but enabled them to do this themselves. They felt that the support they received in relation to their medicine promoted their independence and met their needs.

People who received support from staff with applying creams were satisfied that staff did this appropriately and respected their choice on days when they did not want their creams applied.

Inspection carried out on 30 March 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us that they were satisfied with the support they receive from Melton Court in relation to their personal care.

They told us that care workers wore gloves when providing their care but they had not observed care workers washing their hands.

People reported that care workers helped them with their medication in a variety of ways which included applying prescribed creams, administering eye drops and giving them their box of tablets so they could take their medication.