Archived: Mears Care Huntingdon

Mears Care Huntingdon is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care and support to people living their own flats in the specialist ‘extra care’ housing scheme in Huntingdon town centre. 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. At the time of our inspection 11 people were receiving the regulated activity personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection. The provider had systems in place to enable staff to safely manage people’s medicines.

The provider had systems in place to make sure they only employed staff once they had checked they were suitable to work with people who used the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. People received care from staff who were trained and very well supported to meet people’s assessed needs.

Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink and maintain a healthy weight. They worked well with external professionals to support people to keep well.

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. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Staff worked well together. They knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. Staff supported people in a gentle and compassionate way. Staff were respectful when they spoke with, and about, people. They supported people to develop or maintain their independence. Care was person-centred and met each person’s specific needs. People and their relatives were involved in their, or their family member's, care reviews.

People’s care plans provided staff with guidance on how to meet each person’s needs. People spoke positively about how staff helped them to maintain and or develop their interests and community links. With support from external healthcare professionals, staff supported people to receive end of life care in their own home.

People and their families felt able to raise concerns which the provider addressed. The provider had systems in place, including a complaints procedure, to deal with any concerns or complaints. The provider and registered manager promoted a culture that focused on people as individuals. The provider had put robust systems in place to effectively monitor the service and bring about further improvement. Staff worked in partnership with external professionals.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was Good (published 29 April 2017).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This service was added to the provider’s registration on 8 April 2016. This announced inspection took place on 3 April 2017. It was the service’s first inspection. There were 22 people receiving care at that time. The service also provides emergency support to the other people living at Park View who did not receive personal care.

The service had 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.

Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out comprehensive and satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were well trained, and well supported, by their managers. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s safety was effectively managed. These reduced risks to people without restricting them from doing the things they enjoyed. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and of how to protect people from harm.

Staff knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. People’s health and care needs were effectively met. Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on any concerns. People received their medicines as prescribed.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. People’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Staff were aware of the key legal requirements of the MCA and DoLS.

People received care and support from staff who were kind, caring and friendly to the people they were caring for. People and their relatives had opportunities to comment on the service provided and people were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Care plans and risk assessments gave staff the information they required to meet people’s individual care and support needs. The care provided was based on people’s individual choices and preferences.

Care records were detailed and provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent care to each person. Changes to people’s care was kept under review to ensure the change was effective.

There were opportunities for people to develop hobbies and interests. People were supported to access the community and be involved in community events.

The registered manager was experienced and staff were managed to provide people with safe care that met their needs and maintained their independence. There was a system in place to receive and manage people’s compliments, suggestions or complaints. People had access to information on how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be acted on. Concerns were thoroughly investigated and plans actioned to bring about improvement in the service.

There were systems in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service. When areas for improvement were identified action was taken to address the shortfalls. People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback on the service in various ways both formally and informally. People’s views were listened to and acted on.