You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 October 2019

About the service

MM Care Services Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. The service provides care for older people and younger adults with needs relating to dementia and physical disabilities. There was one person using this service at the time of our inspection. Only one person received the regulated activity of personal care.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People’s needs associated with risk had been assessed, but not fully explored to ensure staff had sufficient guidance to support and manage all known risks. Systems were in place to monitor and manage safeguarding’s to ensure people were kept safe. People were encouraged to raise concerns and felt safe with the staff that cared for them, but information to tell them how to do this required updating. Recruitment processes were robust enough to ensure people employed were safe to work with the people who used the service. People were responsible for their own medicines at the time of inspection, however policy and procedures were in place for medicines to be administered as prescribed and in a safe way. People were protected from cross contamination because staff followed infection control policy and procedures. Processes and procedures were in place to ensure Lessons were learned and action would be taken when things went wrong.

People consented to their care and support. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was considered when decisions about care were made. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s needs were assessed and delivered as reflected in their care plan, but the care plans needed to be more detailed to ensure they were written in a person centred way. Staff received sufficient training to support them in their role. Staff prepared meals when needed and fully supported people to have sufficient to eat and drink. Where appropriate people were supported to attend appointments, such as the GP; to help achieve a positive outcome for their health and wellbeing.

People were cared for by kind, compassionate and polite staff. There was an opportunity for people to discuss their care and support on a regular basis. Advocate support was acquired if people needed support to express their views. People were shown respect and their dignity was protected always.

People’s care plans included choice, needs and preferences. People’s communication needs were appropriately accommodated. People were supported to avoid social isolation and encouraged to be independent. Systems were in place to monitor and address complaints. Staff had been trained in end of life care. Policy and procedures were in place to ensure people had the opportunity to share and understand their wishes, needs and preferences at the end of their life.

The service promoted an honest and open culture. The provider understood and acted on the duty of candour. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility and had a clear oversight of the service. The management were open and transparent with a willingness to learn and improve. The provider worked with other professionals and developed networks within the community.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection: Inspected but not rated (report published 23 January 2019).

This service was registered with us on 05/01/2016 and this is the first rated inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 8 October 2019

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.