Myable Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 29 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider did not ensure they delivered and planned care that was person centred. Care plans were generic and did not contain information specific to that person. This included what call times people preferred, or the number of calls people should receive. There was no person centred information relating to people’s likes or dislikes or people’s life histories to inform staff on what people may want to talk about.

There was no information within people’s care plans about what they were able to do for themselves, and what they needed staff support with. Care plans did not include people’s cultural or religious backgrounds, or when some people’s first language was not English.

Daily notes contained very little detail on the support people were given. Very limited information on the care provided was documented. This meant the provider would not have been able to have a good oversight on the care provided.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and careneeds of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of

choice and continuity. People’s care was not supportive of choice or continuity.

People’s care and support needs were not effectively assessed and therefore staff could not deliver people’s care in a way that met their needs. We found people’s care was not seamless and joined up as information detailed about people was poor and therefore could not be shared with other professionals involved in their care.

The provider failed to consider the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care.

Whilst people had a regular staff team, their care calls were inconsistent and did not follow a regular schedule. Some people’s relatives told us they were happy with the staff that provided care to their loved ones, another relative told us the care calls were not always at a time that was expected or agreed.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People did not have information tailored to individual needs. The provider had not ensured people could access their information, such as care plans, in a language of their preference. For example, one person’s first language was not English and the provider had not considered what language they would prefer their information in.

People did not have information that was accurate and up to date. People’s care and support plans lacked important details relating to their health needs and how to safely deliver their care which reflected their preferences and needs.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaintsabout their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care

or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relatives were not always kept up to date regarding their loved ones. One relative told us that when care calls were missed, they were not informed my staff. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The provider did not have systems in place to formally gather people’s feedback and ideas. Whilst they told us they phoned people to see if they were happy with their care, this was not recorded to ensure appropriate action could be taken.

The provider told us they had not received any formal complaints.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment theyneeded when they needed it.

People’s care, treatment and support was not accessible, timely or in line with best practice, quality standards or legal requirements. For example, the provider had not ensured care calls were delivered in line with people’s needs and preferences. The provider had not used recognised health tools, such as Waterlow tool for pressure care risk management or legal frameworks including the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider told us they supported people to access district nurses, however there was no records of this in people’s care and support plans.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

The provider lacked understanding around current health and social care practices, including how to effectively support people to manage their health risks. This meant that the care planned and delivered was not tailored to ensure risks were well managed.

People were not always empowered by leaders and staff to give their views and understand their rights, including their rights to equality and their human rights. Whilst the provider told us they phoned people to gather their views and wishes, this was not formally recorded or reviewed to ensure people were consistently experiencing positive outcomes that supported equality and human rights.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People did not have care or support plans in place that reflected their preferences for future care. The provider confirmed that they had not considered people’s future preferences, wishes or needs. This meant that people’s future care may not be delivered in line with their best interest, wishes or preferences