You are here

Meadows Homecare Services Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

Meadows Homecare Services is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care for people living in their own homes. They specialise in offering 24 hour ‘live in’ care support. This means that there are staff supporting people 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There were 15 people being supported with the regulated activity of personal care at the time of our inspection.

The registered manager for this service was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. However, they were still a registered manager on our register at the time. Arrangements had been made to cancel their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and an area operations manager was overseeing the day-to-day running of the service. 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.

This inspection was carried out on 18 and 19 October 2017 and was an announced inspection. At the last inspection on 21, 22, and 23 October 2015, the service was rated as ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good.’

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and report on what we find. Staff were able to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the MCA to ensure that people did not have their freedom restricted in an unlawful manner. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had individualised health, care and support plans in place which recorded their needs. These plans prompted staff on any assistance a person may require and how they would like the support to be given. Individual risks to people were identified and assessed by staff. Plans were put into place to minimise these risks as far as practicable to enable people to live an independent and safe a life as possible. Arrangements were in place to make sure that people, who required this support, were assisted by staff with the safe management of their prescribed medication.

People were assisted to access a range of external health care professionals and were supported to maintain their health. People’s health and nutritional needs were met.

People who used the service were cared for by staff in a kind and respectful way. Staff supported people to maintain their interests and links with the local community.

People and their relatives were able to raise any suggestions or concerns that they might have with the manager and feel listened too.

There were enough staff available to work the service’s number of commissioned and contracted work hours. Staff understood their responsibility to report suspicions of harm and poor care practice. There were pre-employment checks in place to ensure that new staff were deemed suitable to work with the people they were supporting.

Staff were trained to provide effective care which met people’s individual support and care needs. Staff were supported by the manager to maintain and develop their skills through training. The standard of staff members’ work performance was reviewed by the management through observations and supervisions. This was to make sure that staff were competent and confident to deliver the care required.

The manager sought feedback about the quality of the service provided from people and/or their relatives. Staff were supported to raise any concerns or suggestions that they may have with the manager and felt listened to. There was a basic on-going quality monitoring process in place to identify areas of improvement required within the service. Where improvements had b

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was safe.

The service remains good.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were aware of the key requirements of the MCA 2005 and people were not unlawfully restricted.

Staff were trained to support people. Staff had regular observations and supervisions undertaken to monitor their work performance.

People�s health and nutritional needs were met.

Care and support plans included detailed guidance for staff about people�s support and care needs, identified risks and health conditions.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was caring.

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was responsive.

The service remains good.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was not always well-led.

There was a registered manager in place, but they were no longer in role. The area operations manager was overseeing the day-to-day running of the service.

CQC were not always notified of events that they were legally obliged to be made aware of.

People, their relatives and staff were asked to feedback on the quality of the service provided to drive forward any improvements required.

There was a basic quality monitoring process in place to identify any areas of improvement required within the service.