Metro Homecare 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 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 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received initial assessments of their care and support needs prior to their package of care starting. While care plans were detailed and risks had been assessed, information was not always accurate, recorded or updated. For example, one care plan detailing the persons environment and routines were inaccurate and had not been identified. The plan stated that they had microwave meals and watched TV in their bedroom although the person did not own a microwave and they didn’t have a TV in their room. The person stated that errors had been highlighted to the providers staff but had not been updated. One person said, “I told the coordinator when she came but it hadn’t changed.” Although these had been highlighted, review changes had not been made. We fed this back to the provider.

Protected characteristics and diverse needs under the Equality Act formed part of this process. For example, people’s religious needs and preferences were captured.

People confirmed that they, and their relatives, were involved in their assessments of needs and reviews of their care.

People receive care, treatment and support that is evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. The provider used good practice and evidence-based standards in medicine management, monitoring of falls and wound care. For example, body maps were used for carers to document and manage any areas that were at risk or pressure sores.

People had been involved in their care planning, and an initial assessment of care needs had been completed that existing health information and social care needs of the person.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. When people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, it was co-ordinated effectively.

Information was shared between teams and services to ensure joined up working When people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, it was co-ordinated effectively. Appropriate and timely referrals were made to specialist health services when needed.

People were supported to manage their own health, care and wellbeing needs.

Some people were supported by care workers to prepare food and meals. People told us that care workers prepared meals that they had chosen and was done effectively.

Oral health assessments had been completed for some people to ensure that they could be supported to maintain good oral health. Appropriate referrals had been made to specialist services when additional health support was identified as being needed.

The provider did not always effectively monitor people’s care and support plans effectively to ensure consistency or ensure information was accurate.

People did not always experience positive outcomes. For example, although there was consistent oversight of staff schedules with travel time implemented, some people said they experienced care calls later than expected and desired. Some people told us that they had raised this with the provider. Some care records did not match aspects of the person’s life or support. Although this did not directly impact the persons safety, it demonstrated that records were not effectively monitored.

Quality assurance tools such as spot checks were in place to monitor staffs’ performance and approach to care. People told us that these had been completed, and they had been asked about their views of their care and support.

People’s views and wishes were considered when their care was planned.

At the time of the inspection, the provider was not supporting anyone who lacked capacity. The provider assessed people’s capacity prior to commencing care and support. Systems were in place to formally assess people’s capacity. The registered manager understood the principles of best interest decisions and working with relevant parties.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible

Staff received training on the Mental Capacity Act and understood their responsibilities regarding MCA. Consent forms, relating to people’s care, had been completed.