Myable Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 25 (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 did not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect theirprivacy and dignity. Whilst individual staff may have been kind, they had not ensured people were at the heart of the service. The provider had not ensured systems and processes supported a caring service. For example, people were left in undignified situations through late and missed calls. People’s care plans did not support staff to ensure kind and dignified care could be delivered in line with peoples wishes and preferences.

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. People’s care plans did not contain information to inform staff how to treat people with dignity. People were not always treated with kindness as they had to wait for care to be delivered, and daily notes showed sometimes this resulted in people being left in a wet bed.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care and support was not tailored to them. The provider failed to ensure that people’s preferences around their care and support was documented within their care plans. There was no information within care plans to inform staff what the person was able to do for themselves or what they needed support with. There was no information about people’s strengths or aspirations. People’s cultures were not documented, to enable staff to know about them and what could be important to them. Daily notes we received were task focused and contained very limited information regarding interactions with people individual to their likes.
One relative told us that when staff were late it impacted their loved ones routine. For example, they could not carry out their daily routine until their care had been delivered. This was impacted when staff were late.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights andhave choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not supported to have choice and control over their care, as their needs and preferences had not been documented. People’s communication needs were not clearly documented within care plans, for example to include if people’s first language was not English.

People’s ability to consent to decision making about their care had not been captured, and people had not been involved in the creation of their care plans. There was no information within care plans about people’s wishes around their care and treatment, for example if they wanted to go to hospital if they became unwell, or if they had treatment escalation plans.

Staff did not have the information they needed to ensure they could actively support people to have independence, choice and control over their lives. The provider had not ensured people’s care plans reflected how staff could support them to maintain their independence.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did notrespond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were not responsive to people’s personal care needs. We found there were significant gaps between visit times, sometimes over 10 hours during the day when there should have been no more than 4 hours. This meant that people’s continence needs were not responded to leaving them in undignified situations.

People’s needs views and wishes had not been captured within their care plans, to anticipate future needs and void preventable discomfort concern or distress. The provider told us they had not considered asking people about any future wishes.

Staff did not always recognise when people needed urgent support. For example, one person fell and hit their head. This was not reported to leaders to see if an ambulance needed to be called or to ensure that process was followed. Staff did not consider the person’s capacity to make the decision about calling an ambulance, with a potential head injury.

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

There were insufficient staff to meet people’s needs, which placed pressure on the staff employed who were delivering care. Staff were often late to care calls and the provider had not ensured staff had they information they needed to support people. The provider had not considered staff wellbeing and the pressures this placed upon staff.

The staff we spoke with told us they were happy with the support they received. However, there were no formal systems to provide support to staff, for example, through staff feedback or surveys. The provider did not have an employee assistance programme to provide external support for staff. When staff experienced distress outside of the work place the provider had not considered what support they could offer.

Despite several requests, the provider did not send us call log data. We could not be assured that staff did not work excessive hours. We could not be assured that staff were supported to take breaks between shifts, have adequate travel time and arrive for their calls in a timely way.