Mercury Care Services Ltd

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 and support and wellbeing needs with them. People had a range of assessments and plans in place, including needs assessments, risk assessments and care plans. The provider regularly reviewed people’s needs and support with them, and their relatives where appropriate.

We identified some record keeping issues in relation to some people’s risk assessments but the issues had not affected the provider’s ability to understand people’s needs or staff knowledge of how best to support them.

A person told us, “They [member of staff] came round and they wrote what I needed and when.” Another person said, “I had a visit from the service to record my needs.” One other person told us, “They [member of staff] came to see the whole house and asked me for my preferences.” A person added, “They [staff] also met with my son who provided them with my medical and dietary information.”

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 followed the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, the NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines for ‘Managing medicines for adults receiving social care in the community’ and ‘The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism’, for example.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared information about people’s needs and support with other professionals when people moved between different services.

A member of staff told us, “We work well together, there’s no issues, they [staff] are nice and caring.” The registered manager said, “As a team I think staff work well. I have done several spot-checks and they seem to work well. I have not had to settle any staff disputes.”

A person’s relative told us, “My [mother/father] has meals on wheels, and the carers will wait if they’re late because they support [her/him] with eating.”

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing and to live healthier lives, and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

However, record keeping in relation to some people’s oral health assessments required some improvement. We found no evidence anyone had been harmed or adversely affected by this issue. During our assessment the provider acknowledged improvements were required and explained they would ensure people’s oral health needs were followed up with them and their families and their oral health assessments were updated.

A person’s relative told us, “They [staff] support [her/him] with eating and drinking. They leave them water” and “The carers make sure my [mother/father] is properly hydrated and leave a drink in a place where [she/he] can reach it.”

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.

Staff completed daily notes of people’s care and support and the provider checked these. The provider met with people, their relatives, social services and healthcare professionals to review people’s care and support. The provider regularly carried out spot-checks to assess staff competency and practice and completed regular telephone monitoring calls with people and their relatives to obtain feedback about their care and support.

A person told us, “There’s someone that comes from the service every three months and they will ask questions. They ask questions about how the service is doing and is there anything they can do to improve. They always review things, and I think they spoke to a person at the council about it.”

A person’s relative said, “We have a lot of liaisons with the service or through their office. An occupational therapist came from social services a few weeks ago and watched the carers, watching what they did. And all the carers will ask me if there’s anything that’s required.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when supporting people. This included people who lacked mental capacity, people who had relatives or others with Legal Power of Attorney over their health care and/or finances and people with a DNAR (Do Not Attempt Resuscitation) in place.

Staff asked people for permission before carrying out tasks. A member of staff told us, “We always ask for people's permission.” Another member of staff said, “We definitely ask for permission, even when we are doing personal care, in order to promote respect and dignity.”

A person told us, “Staff ask for my permission and ask me what I want to eat.”. A person’s relative said, “They [staff] always ask if they can support [her/him]. They always ask for [her/his] permission.”