You are here

Archived: Mocare Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 April 2016

We carried out an inspection of Mocare on 4 and 5 April 2016. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of our intention to carry out the inspection. This is because it is a community based service and we needed to make sure the registered person was available.

Mocare is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The agency’s office is located in near the centre of Nelson, close to all local amenities. The agency provides a service to people residing in Burnley and Pendle. At the time of the inspection 16 people were using the service.

The service was managed by the registered person who is an individual provider. There is therefore no legal requirement for a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This was the first inspection of the service. During the inspection, we found there was a breach of one regulation relating to the recruitment of new staff. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

All people told us they felt safe when receiving care from the service. Staff had a good knowledge of how to identify abuse and the action to take if abuse was suspected. We found care was planned and delivered to ensure people were protected against avoidable harm.

People received their medicines safely and were supported to eat and drink in accordance with their care plan.

Staff arrived on time and stayed for the full time allocated to them. Travelling time was not deducted from any of the visits. People therefore received the full 60 minutes care if they had booked this. People were cared for by a sufficient number of suitably trained staff who had the necessary experience and knowledge to carry out their role effectively. There was continuity of care and staff understood people's needs. However, the provider had not always operated a robust recruitment procedure and we found some information was missing from two staff members’ records.

People received safe care and support which reflected their individual preferences, likes and dislikes and promoted their independence. People were involved in the planning and monitoring of their care.

People were treated with kindness, sensitivity and care. People's individuality was at the centre of how their care was delivered. They were fully involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff understood the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it applied to people in their care. People's consent was sought before care was given and they made choices and decisions about how this was carried out.

There was a quality monitoring system in place. The registered person undertook regular audits and spot checks were carried out to observe how the staff delivered care to people. People were asked for their views and feedback was acted upon to maintain or improve the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

Whilst people told us they felt safe and secure using the service, we found a robust recruitment procedure for new staff had not always been followed.

Staff were trained in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and were knowledgeable about the procedures to follow to help keep people safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people�s needs.

The systems in place for the management of medicines assisted staff to ensure they were handled safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care people required.

Staff were appropriately supported by the registered person to carry out their roles effectively through induction, relevant training and regular supervision.

Staff understood the main provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it applied to people in their care.

Where appropriate, people were supported to have a sufficient amount to eat and drink. People received care and support which assisted them to maintain their health.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was caring.

People were involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff supported people to maintain their dignity and independence and people were looked after in the way they preferred.

People made positive comments about the caring and kind approach of the staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was responsive.

Assessments were undertaken and care plans developed to identify people�s care needs. Staff were aware of people�s preferences and how best to meet their needs.

People were involved in their care planning, decision making and reviews.

There was a system in place to manage complaints and comments. People felt able to make a complaint and were confident that complaints would be listened to and acted on.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was well led.

The registered person provided clear leadership and was committed to the continuous improvement of the service.

There were systems in place to consult with people and to monitor and develop the quality of the service provided.