Myable Care Limited

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated Inadequate.

This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent.

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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were not robustly assessed to ensure that the service could meet their needs and provide safe care. The pre-assessments the provider shared with us were not sufficiently detailed, and the information did not inform detailed or robust care plans. One person’s pre-assessment detailed they were vegetarian; however this information was not detailed within their care plan. The provider gave us a pre-assessment form they had completed, however this was not signed, fully completed and did not have the name of the person it related to.

People’s risks had been assessed by the provider, however these were inadequate and they had not used any recognised risk matrix to support their risk calculations. The provider did not have a robust system in place to ensure that when people’s needs changed, this was known and shared with staff, and guidance updated accordingly. Care plans were poor and lacked key information on how to support people safely or consistently.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider failed to ensure that they used evidence based tools, good practice and standards when supporting people. We asked the provider which tools they used to support their assessment of people, and they told us they used the Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) tool. This is a tool used to measure the upper arm circumference to assess nutritional status. The MUAC the provider shared with us was completed in April 2026, despite the provider supporting the person since August 2025. This was not a timely use of this tool and meant they had not been safely monitoring this person to ensure they were maintaining a healthy weight.
The provider did not use other recognised tools to support the health and wellbeing of people. For example, a number of people were at risk of skin breakdown, however the provider had not used the Waterlow assessment to assess their level of risk of skin breakdown. The Waterlow assessment tool assess a patient's risk of developing pressure ulcers.

The provider did not work well across teams and services to support people. They did not share their assessment of people’s needs when moving between different services.

The provider did not work well across teams and services to support people. Staff did not have access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. For example, people’s care and support plans lacked important information about their health risks to ensure they could support people safely and in line with their preferences.

Information was not shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care. For example, when the provider took on short term packages of care, support plans and risk assessments were not implemented and the provider confirmed this. This meant staff were not provided with the information needed to support people safely between transition of services.

The provider had not ensured they facilitated good information sharing and collaboration with external health partners. Where health concerns were identified, there were no records to share with other health partners, this included information on people’s diabetes and epilepsy. People did not have monitoring systems in place to ensure the information could be shared with partners.

The provider did not support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider failed to ensure people were supported to live as healthy lives as possible. Some people had diabetes. There was no information within people’s care plans to inform staff how best to support them for example to reduce the risk of high blood sugars.

Care plans for people did not contain any information about what people were able to do for themselves, to encourage them to stay as healthy as possible. There was no information for people who were mobile about how to support them to mobilise or how frequently to do this. Some people were at risk of skin breakdown. Their care plans stated they should be supported to reposition regularly, however there was no evidence this was being done. This did not support people to reduce their future care and support needs and placed them of increased risk of this.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People that experienced prolonged pain were not supported to monitor and manage this to ensure positive outcomes could be met. People’s care plans did not detail how staff could support people to manage pain, what staff needed to do in an emergency and what signs and symptoms staff should look out for.

Where people required support with catheter care, there were no systems in place to monitor this health need to ensure people had positive outcomes. People’s urine output was not being recorded or monitored to ensure any concerns could be identified quickly and acted upon.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these whendelivering care and treatment.

People’s capacity and ability to consent was not considered. People’s care plans did not document whether they had been assessed as having capacity or not and what decisions they may need support with. The provider told us that everyone had capacity but there was no evidence to confirm or deny this.

The provider lacked understanding in relation to people’s capacity and the related legislation, the Mental Capacity Act 2005. One person’s risk assessment for bed rails detailed, ‘‘CQC requires evidence that least restrictive options have been explored’. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 outlines why the least restrictive option should be explored when a restriction is placed upon someone. The provider did not demonstrate a good understanding that restrictions placed upon people, should be done so in line with the Mental Capacity Act.

The provider also failed to demonstrate how people were supported and empowered to have choice and consent. The provider told us of an incident where a person had fallen. The provider told us they spoke with the relative rather than the person who had fallen. The provider told us the person did have capacity and could not share why they had not spoke directly with the person. This demonstrated a lack of understanding around consent and capacity.

People’s views and wishes were not taken into account when their care was planned. People’s care plans lacked any information regarding their preferences and wishes and did not detail if there had been any conversations with them or their family around consent. People’s care and support contracts had not been signed by people or their relatives.