You are here

Forget Me Not Home Services Ltd Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

Forget Me Not Home Services Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to adults. At the time of this announced inspection of 15 August 2018 there were 55 people who used the personal care service. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to make sure that someone was available in the office to assist us with our inspection.

At our last inspection of 31 July 2017, the service was rated requires improvement overall. The key questions for effective, caring and responsive were rated good and the key questions safe and well-led were rated requires improvement. We had found breaches of Regulations 12 and 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and there were no breaches of Regulation. The service is now rated good overall and for all of the five key questions.

There was a registered manager in post, who was also a managing director of the organisation. 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 in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Improvements had been made in how the service was led. This included improvements in their governance systems to assess and monitor the service provided to people. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result, the quality of the service continued to improve.

Improvements had been made in how the service provided people with safe care. Improvements had been made to recruit care workers safely. Improvements had been made in how the care workers completed their medicines administration records and these were checked regularly by senior staff.

Risks to people were managed, including risks from abuse and in their daily lives. There were enough care workers to cover people’s planned care visits. The risks of cross infection were minimised.

People continued to be provided with a responsive service. People received care and support which was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their individual needs. There were systems in place to support and care for people at the end of their lives, where required. A complaints procedure was in place and complaints were responded to in line with this procedure.

People continued to receive a caring service. People had positive relationships with their care workers. People’s dignity, privacy and independence were respected and promoted. People’s views were listened to and valued.

People continued to receive an effective service. People were supported by care workers who were trained to meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers cared for them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Systems were in place to assist people with their dietary needs, where required. People were encouraged to access health professionals where needed. The service worked with other organisations involved in people’s care to provide a consistent service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was safe.

There were care workers available to cover planned visits. Care workers were recruited safely.

There were systems in place to support people with their medicines, as required.

There were systems in place to reduce the risks to people from abuse and avoidable harm. Infection control processes reduced the risks of cross infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was effective.

People were cared for by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs.

The service understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Where people required support with their dietary needs, this was provided effectively.

People were supported to access health professionals, where required. The service worked with other organisations to provide a consistent service.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and independence was promoted and respected.

People�s choices were respected and listened to.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed, planned for and met. People�s end of life decisions were documented.

There was a system in place to manage people�s complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 September 2018

The service was well-led.

The service assessed and monitored the care and support provided to people. The quality assurance systems supported the registered manager to identify and address shortfalls.