You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 December 2018

Mears Care Limited Wallsend provides personal care to mainly older adults in their own homes. At the time of inspection there were 130 people using the service.

We previously inspected Mears Care in September 2017, at which time the service was in breach of regulations 9, 13, 17 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At the previous inspection we rated the service as requires improvement. At this inspection, we found there had been improvements in all areas and the service had improved to good. The service was no longer in breach of the regulations.

There was a registered manager in place with suitable experience and knowledge of the service. 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.’

The registered manager had ensured a range of improvements had been made, specifically with regard to the implementation of the electronic call monitoring system and rota planning system. We found instances of missed or delayed calls had been significantly reduced.

People who used the service felt safe and had confidence in the service.

There were risk assessments in place to ensure staff knew how to keep people safe. These were regularly reviewed. Some risk assessments would benefit from more personalised details.

Where staff administered medicines they had been appropriately trained. Staff competence in this regard was regularly checked and reminders shared with all staff where common errors or poor practice were identified.

Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and understood the risks people faced. They also understood the risks of lone working and were well supported by the provider in this regard.

No concerns were raised with us by external professionals regarding the service.

Rota planning was effective and well managed. Out of hours on call arrangements were in place. Staff mobile phones were used to log in and out of calls and this system was working well.

There was effective liaison with external professionals to ensure people’s needs could be reviewed and met.

Staff were well supported by way of induction, ongoing training and support and staff meetings.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Continuity of care was generally good particularly given the higher volume of shorter calls the provider undertook.

Staff treated people in a dignified way and feedback was consistently strong in this regard.

The registered manager had sent surveys to all people who used the service, reviewed responses, responded to people and put a plan in place to address any concerns.

Care files were well-ordered and logical and contained sufficient person-centred detail.

People’s changing needs were well met. The service had provided end of life care previously and worked well with external nurses to ensure people were supported in a consistent, dignified way.

The management of complaints had improved since our last inspection. All people who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise concern. Complaints were comprehensively addressed.

The registered manager was receptive to feedback and was aware of aspects of best practice.

The culture was one of meeting people’s care needs well, whilst also trying to ensure this was done in a positive, person-centred way, rather than a task-focussed way.

The registered manager had ensured the required improvements to the service had been made.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 December 2018

The service was safe.

People who used the service and their relatives confirmed there were no missed calls and late calls were rare.

Medicines audits and competence checks happened regularly.

Risk assessments were in place although some would benefit from more person-centred content.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were suitably skilled, experienced and well supported.

Rotas were well planned and managed with clear lines of accountability.

People were encouraged to try and maintain healthy balanced diets.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 December 2018

The service was caring.

People who used the service and their relatives praised the attitudes of staff.

People were treated with dignity and respect and staff did not rush.

People were made to feel a part of the care planning process through regular involvement.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 December 2018

The service was responsive.

Pre-assessments and ongoing review ensured staff were aware of people’s changing needs.

The registered manager ensured people received information and could communicate in a way that was most effective and accessible for them.

The service provided end of life care in conjunction with other professionals in a personalised and dignified way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 December 2018

The service was well-led.

Action plans had been implemented and followed since the last inspection to ensure improvements were made.

Auditing of medicines administration and other processes took place regularly.

Documentation was accurate and up to date, with appropriate policies in place to support the smooth running of the service.