Melton Care Services 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 Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. However, the level of guidance for staff about the person’s individual needs was inconsistent. Details of what was important to people, such as their routines and how they received care and support, were better documented.

For example, people’s communication needs had been assessed and planned for. Where people had sensory needs and required aids such as glasses and hearing aids, this was documented and daily care records confirmed staff supported people with these needs. However, one person’s first language was not English, and their care plan noted that they struggled to speak and understand English. There was no guidance/consideration of how staff should support the person’s communication needs. This meant the person was at risk of not having their needs, preferences and choices fully understood or met. It also limited staff’s ability to communicate important information in a way the person could easily understand, potentially affecting their involvement in decisions about their care and day‑to‑day wellbeing.

People and relatives confirmed they were fully involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support needs.

People’s care packages were reviewed with them on a 3-month basis. This was either a face-to-face meeting or a phone call, depending on how the last review was completed. The sample of reviews we looked at was overall recorded well, and where changes had been requested, the person’s care calls and/or care plans had been updated accordingly. Review documents were required to be reviewed and signed off by the registered manager to ensure that all required actions were completed. From the sample we reviewed, most, but not all, had been signed off by the registered manager. The registered manager advised this was an oversight and improvement would be made.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used recognised assessment tools in line with legislation and current evidence-based best practice and standards. The provider worked well with external stakeholders, making timely referrals to health and social care professionals. This collaborative approach resulted in people experiencing positive outcomes.

Where support with eating and drinking was required, care plans provided staff with information about individuals' needs, preferences, and risks. This included recommendations from external professionals. For example, the support required to manage and mitigate risks associated with swallowing difficulties. Daily records confirmed staff supported people in line with their care plan.

People were positive about how their eating and drinking needs were met. A person said, “They [staff] leave me a jug when they go, of milk, lemon, whatever I want.” Another person told us how staff supported them with their breakfast and how they were asked what they would like.

Staff ensured where required, people had access to drinks and snacks between care calls. Care plan guidance reminded staff to check food use-by dates to ensure foods were safe to eat. Staff had received training in safe food handling.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People told us that the assessment and ongoing review process enabled them to share their information, which updated their care plans and reduced the times they had to repeat their care and support needs to staff and others.

Staff told us they were well supported by the management team, who were described as “approachable” and “supportive.” They were positive about the communication and teamwork approach. A staff member said, “Communication is very good with the office and other carers. Communication is done in several different ways, including at regular staff meetings, which we now have far more of since the new manager took over.”

People’s care records confirmed how staff worked with external health and social care professionals. The registered manager told us how they shared information where required and with consent from the person and or their advocate, to ensure consistency of care and to reduce the times people had to repeat their story.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Changes to people’s health needs were recorded, reported, and acted upon. However, care plan guidance provided staff with no information about people’s health conditions and the impact on the person and their care and support needs. We raised this with the management team, who agreed that this information was necessary and confirmed it would be incorporated as part of the rollout of the new electronic care record system.

People and their relatives were satisfied with the support they received from staff in relation to their health needs. People's care records confirmed actions had been taken when a person's health needs changed. People also told us how staff monitored their health conditions and how they alerted others, such as relatives or external professionals such as the GP and community nursing services of any changes or concerns.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider sought people’s experience of the service to ensure the outcomes of their care was positive, and their expectations were being met.This was achieved through 3 monthly review meetings and an annual satisfaction survey.

People confirmed that they received opportunities to share their experiences of the service and were able to request changes to their care package. People were confident that the service they received had led to positive outcomes, such as maintaining their independence by living in their own home and avoiding residential care. Two people told us they wanted the care call times changed. We were aware from their care reviews that this request had been recorded, and the management team had advised that when they were able to accommodate this, such as changes to care call time becoming available, they would make the required changes.

Staff were confident that people received consistent care as staff were allocated the same people to support. This enabled staff to effectively monitor people’s needs and to take responsive action when changes occurred.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Whilst the registered manager was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This was an area of ongoing improvement.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making specific decisions on behalf of individuals who may lack the mental capacity to make them for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are assisted in doing so when needed. Where people lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and, at least, as restrictive as possible.

The local authority identified during its audit visits to the service in 2025, that improvements were required to ensure the MCA was fully adhered to. Whilst the registered manager had taken some actions, they told us they were continuing to make improvements. For example, they were in the process of completing further MCA assessments.

Staff were aware of the principles of the MCA and had received relevant training, as well as access to the provider’s policy. Care plan guidance included the importance of seeking people’s consent before care was provided.

At the time of the inspection, no person had been granted or an application made to the Court of Protection for a Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). This occurs when a person lacks the mental capacity to consent to their care arrangement.