Archived: Micah Community Care

Updated 8 March 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is 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.

This inspection visit took place on 20 and 22 February 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people who lived in the community. We needed to be sure that we could access the office premises.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.’ The expert- by-experience had a background dealing with older people and people in the early stages of dementia.

Before our inspection on 20 and 22 February 2017 we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people the service supported. We also checked to see if any information concerning the care and welfare of people supported had been received.

We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) we received prior to our inspection. 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. This provided us with information and numerical data about the operation of the service. We used this information as part of the evidence for the inspection. This guided us to what areas we would focus on as part of our inspection.

During our inspection we spoke with nine people supported by the service and the relatives of two people. We also went to the Micah Community Care office and spoke with the registered manager and six staff members providing care in the community.

We looked at the care records of six people, training and recruitment records of six staff members and records relating to the management of the service. We also spoke with the commissioning department at the local authority. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced accessing the service.

Updated 8 March 2017

This inspection visit took place on 20 and 22 February 2017 and was announced.

This was the first inspection of the service since its registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 02 March 2016.

Micah Community Care is a domiciliary care agency, providing personal care to people in their own homes. The agency provides support in the home for older people, dementia, mental health, physical disability and sensory impairment. The agency operates from offices based in Thornton-Cleveleys. At the time of our inspection visit Micah Community Care provided services to 33 people.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Nine people supported by the service told us staff who visited them were polite, friendly and caring. They told us they received patient and safe care and they liked the staff who supported them. Comments received included, “I’ve always found them very nice, there’s never been anyone funny or who I can’t trust.” And, “The girls who visit me are friendly and very pleasant.”

We found recruitment procedures were safe with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff members commenced their employment. A recently appointed staff member told us their recruitment had been very thorough.

Newly appointed staff received induction training completed at the services office base. This was followed by shadowing experienced colleagues until they felt safe to support people unsupervised.

Staff received training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

We looked at how the service was staffed. Six staff members spoken with said they were happy with how their visits were managed. Nine people supported by the service told us staff were usually reliable although some people reported they had experienced problems with late visits. The registered manager confirmed there had been problems with staff arriving late and the service was working hard to address this.

The six staff members we spoke with said they enjoyed working for the service and felt well supported by the management team. When we undertook our inspection visit the registered manager was in the process of implementing annual appraisals for his staff.

The service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People told us they received their medicines at the times they needed them.

Staff supported people to have a nutritious dietary and fluid intake. Assistance was provided in preparation of food and drinks as people needed.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. They told us they would be quite comfortable in telling someone if there was a problem.

The service used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included spot checks and care reviews. The registered manager had recently produced annual surveys which were due to be sent to people they supported for their views about the service.

The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care.