21 October 2015
During a routine inspection
We undertook an announced inspection of Mears Care Aintree Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) on 21 October 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available.
Mears Care Aintree is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes. The branch was providing care to 194 people at the time of our inspection. The majority were people with elderly care needs including people living with dementia.
There was a registered manager; however they were not available on the day of our inspection. The agency had made arrangements for a registered manager from another branch to be present during our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At this inspection we found a breach of Regulation 18 HSCA (RA) regulation’s 2014 Staffing. There were not sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent skilled and experienced persons deployed to meet people’s needs.
Some people told us they felt safe when they had their familiar care staff in their homes, however most people told us they often received care from unfamiliar staff and this made them feel unsafe.
People had good relationships with their regular care workers. They felt they were treated with respect. People were not always happy with alternative carers and sometimes felt communication with the agency was poor and they were not listened to.
Staff were receiving regular supervision and appraisal, and training was provided so staff were supported and equipped with the skills needed to do their jobs. New staff were provided with a detailed induction programme, which included training in essential subjects.
The agency had robust recruitment practices in place. Applicants were assessed as suitable for their job roles. No staff commenced duties until all satisfactory checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check had been received. (DBS checks identify if prospective staff have had a criminal record or have been barred from working with children or vulnerable people).
People received their medicines in a safe and appropriate way.
The senior agency staff carried out risk assessments when they visited people for the first time; both with regards to the people and the environment. This was to assess that the person’s home was safe for providing their care, and for staff’s safety.
Other assessments identified people’s specific health and care needs, their mental health, medicines management, and any equipment needed. A care plan was drawn up and agreed between the agency and the individual people concerned. Some people were supported by their family members to discuss their care needs, if this was their choice to do so.
Some staff told us they were happy with their work rotas; however others said the rotas were difficult and they would often arrive late to provide care for people.
People’s capacity to consent had been assessed and they had consented to their care and support. The provider had acted in accordance with their legal responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Complaints had been logged and we could see that they had been investigated. Most of the people we spoke to said they knew how complain and felt any complaints had been responded to and resolved.
There were systems and processes in place to access the quality of service in the form of questionnaires sent out to people who use the service. The completed returned questionnaires had been analysed and a report had been from these figures to monitor and drive continuous improvements, however, feedback from these reports were not shared with people who use the service.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.