You are here

Archived: Manorcourt Homecare Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

This announced comprehensive inspection took place on 12 April 2018 when we carried out a visit to the office. We also carried out telephone calls to people who used the service and staff on 13, 19 and 20 April 2018.

At the last inspection in September 2016 we found that medicines were not managed safely. This was a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

You can read the report from this comprehensive inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Manorcourt Homecare on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults.

Not everyone using Manorcourt Homecare receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection 24 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 and their relatives knew the manager and were able to see them when required.

There were processes in place to protect people from avoidable harm and staff were aware of their responsibilities to report them. Risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately.

Staff had been recruited using a robust recruitment process. There was enough trained staff to support people with their needs. Staff had attended a variety of training to keep their skills up to date and were supported with regular supervision.

Systems were in place for the safe management of medicines and people were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

The provider had processes in place to learn from investigations if or when things went wrong.

People could make choices about their food and drink and were provided with support when required.

Staff would access additional health care professionals to ensure people received effective care or treatment if and when required.

Staff gained consent to care before supporting people; this was sought in line with legislation. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People were treated with dignity and respect, and had the privacy they required.

People’s needs had been assessed prior to them receiving care visits. Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people’s individual requirements. People and their relatives were involved in decisions regarding their care and support needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to complain.

The provider had a clear vision, and were open and transparent. Quality monitoring systems were in place and were effective and staff were involved in developing the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was safe

Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people from harm and abuse and processes were in place to report any concerns.

Staff had been recruited using a robust recruitment process. There were enough trained staff to support people with their needs.

Systems were in place for the safe management of medicines.

Risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately.

People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

When things went wrong, lessons were learnt in order to improve

the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs had been assessed prior to them receiving visits.

Staff had attended a variety of training to keep their skills up to date and were supported with regular supervision.

People could make choices about their food and drink and were provided with support when required.

People had access to health care professionals when required.

Consent to care was sought in line with legislation.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

People were able to make decisions about their daily activities.

People were treated with dignity and respect, and had the privacy they required.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people�s individual requirements.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions regarding their care and support needs.

There was a complaints system in place and people were aware of this.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was well led.

People and their relatives knew the manager and were able to contact them when required.

The provider had a clear vision, and were open and transparent.

Quality monitoring systems were in place and were effective.

Staff were involved in developing the service.