Mimarcare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people's care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
People's needs were assessed before care was provided and reviewed regularly to help ensure support reflected their current needs and preferences. Care plans and risk assessments provided staff with guidance about the care and support people required.
Assessments considered people's health needs, communication, routines, preferences and the outcomes they wished to achieve. This enabled support to be personalised from the outset and reviewed as people's circumstances changed. For example, people were able to choose the gender of staff supporting them.
 

The provider planned and delivered people's care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.
Staff completed induction and ongoing training, including person-centred care, effective communication and infection prevention and control. This helped ensure they had the knowledge and skills to provide safe, personalised care that reflected people's individual needs.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing assessments and information with relevant professionals when people's needs changed.
The provider worked effectively with other services to help ensure people experienced coordinated care. For example, when one person received support from multiple care providers, the registered manager agreed clear responsibilities, established regular communication and adapted electronic care records to support shared medication arrangements. This helped reduce the risk of duplication, improved continuity of care and ensured everyone involved understood their role in supporting the person.
 

The provider consistently supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways which maximised their independence, choice and control. Staff worked proactively with people, families and healthcare professionals to help people live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce the need for additional care and support.

The registered manager described how one person's health deteriorated significantly following the death of their spouse. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to coordinate specialist equipment, review risks and adapt the person's care as their needs changed. Care continued to focus on what mattered to the person, including choosing meals, enjoying tea throughout the day, watching television, listening to the radio overnight and spending time talking with staff. Care plans also included clear outcomes to help the person maintain their health and wellbeing, such as managing breathlessness during activity, maintaining mobility with the support of a walking frame, monitoring changes in their health and preventing avoidable deterioration. This support enabled the person to move from sleeping in a recliner chair and being considered for end-of-life care to sleeping comfortably in a bed, regaining mobility, eating well again and being removed from the end-of-life pathway. They remained living safely at home, in line with their wishes.

People and their relatives consistently described how the provider acted quickly on advice from health professionals, making changes to equipment and support that helped people stay safe, remain as independent as possible and continue doing the things that mattered most to them. Relatives also described how staff encouraged healthy eating, prompted medicines, supported people to access their local community. One relative, who lived a considerable distance away, explained that as their relative's health deteriorated and they became fully dependent on others for their personal care, they believed residential care would have been unavoidable without the provider's support. Instead, staff enabled the person to remain living in the home they had lived in for around 30 years, in line with their strongest wish. The relative told us, "Without carers/MimarCare, I would have seen no alternative but for them to be placed, against their strongest wish, in a care facility." They also explained the provider's support meant their relative could continue enjoying the familiarity and comfort of their own home, while staff became an important source of social contact following the deaths of their spouse and many close friends. This gave the relative confidence that, despite living a considerable distance away, their family member was receiving personalised support that promoted their health, wellbeing and independence, helping them remain connected to the people, places and routines that mattered most as their care needs increased.
 

The provider routinely monitored people's care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider monitored care through regular reviews, quality assurance checks and ongoing conversations with people, relatives and staff. This enabled them to identify opportunities for improvement and helped ensure care remained consistent with the outcomes people wanted to achieve.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Care plans reflected people's preferences and staff adapted support as people's wishes and situations changed.
The provider had clear policies to support staff in applying the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. These included guidance on assessing capacity, obtaining and reviewing consent, making best-interest decisions and involving Lasting Powers of Attorney or independent advocates where appropriate.
We reviewed mental capacity assessments and found they were completed to a good standard. Assessments clearly described the specific decision being considered, the discussions held with the person, the steps taken to support them to make their own decision and the rationale where they lacked capacity. This demonstrated staff applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act in practice rather than relying on assumptions about a person's ability to make decisions.