Archived: Mears Care Leicester

Updated 30 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 4 April 2016 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because we needed to be sure that someone would be available when we visited. The inspection team included an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has had personal experience of either using services or caring for someone in this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information that we held about the service to inform and plan our inspection. This included information that we had received and statutory notifications. A statutory notification contains information relating to significant events that the provider must send to us. We also sought feedback from the local authority who commission and monitor services to give us their view of the care and support that had been provided.

During our visit to the provider’s office we spoke with the registered manager, a care co-ordinator and two senior carers. After our visit, we made telephone calls to 13 people who used the service and to the relatives of four others. We also telephoned three care workers because they were unavailable during our visit.

We looked at the care records of nine people who used the service and four staff files. We also looked at other records about the running of the service. These included health and safety and quality checks that the registered manager had arranged.

We asked the registered manager to submit documentation to us after our visit. This was in relation to the training staff had received, information about criminal records checking and the plan the service had for dealing with emergencies. The registered manager submitted these in the timescales agreed.

Updated 30 April 2016

We inspected the service on 4 April 2016 and the visit was announced. We gave notice of our visit because we needed to be sure somebody would be available at the office.

Mears Care Leicester is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care support in people's homes. At the time of our inspection 90 people were receiving care and support.

It is a requirement that the service has 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. The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection.

People told us that they felt safe. Risks to people’s health and well-being had been assessed and staff knew how to keep people safe. Arrangements were in place to carry out safety checks of people’s homes and equipment to keep them safe.

Staff knew about their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. They knew how to report any concerns and had received training in keeping people safe. There were plans for staff to follow to keep people safe during an emergency.

People were satisfied that their care and support calls were on time and from a consistent staff team. Staff generally felt that they had enough time to carry out the care and support required of them.

People were being supported by staff that had been checked before they had started to work for the provider. This had helped the provider to make safer recruitment decisions. Where we saw that a recheck was missing for a staff member, the registered manager dealt with this promptly.

Where staff supported people with their medicines, this was undertaken in a safe way. Staff received training and on-going guidance to make sure they were handling medicines safely.

People were receiving care and support by staff who had the required skills and knowledge. Staff had received regular training in areas relevant to their role. For example, staff had received training in the safe moving and handling of people.

Staff had received an induction when they had started to work and knew about their responsibilities. They had received regular guidance and support from the registered manager or their supervisor. Staff had opportunities to discuss with the registered manage or their supervisor areas for improvement and they received feedback on their work.

People were being supported by staff who understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff were able to describe how they offered choices and supported people to make decisions about their own care and support. The provider had a process in place for assessing people’s capacity.

People were being supported to remain healthy. Staff knew how to do this and information about people’s health needs was available in their support plans. Where there was concern about people’s health, staff knew what to do and took the appropriate action.

People were offered care and support by staff who cared. Their dignity and privacy was being respected and their confidential and sensitive care records were being stored safely.

Staff knew about people’s preferences and they were being supported to remain as independent as possible by staff who knew how to do this. This meant that people were receiving care and support based on their preferences and abilities.

People had contributed and had been involved in planning and reviewing their care where they could. Staff had up to date information about people’s care and support requirements because regular reviews had taken place.

People received a service that was largely flexible and responsive to them. The timings of calls could be altered to meet their individual requirements. However, it was not always clear about people’s wishes for resuscitation.

Advocacy information was not being made available to people. The registered manager told us that they would consider how to let people know about services that could help them to speak up if they required this support.

People knew how to make a complaint. Feedback about the quality of the service offered had been sought.

People, relatives of people receiving care and support and staff told us that the service was well-led. There were opportunities available to them to give ideas for improvements to the provider.

Staff told us, and we saw, that they were supported and were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They received feedback on their work in order to improve the quality of the care and support offered to people.

There was a registered manager in place who understood the requirements of their role. They had worked with the provider and staff team to regularly assess the quality of the service.