You are here

Archived: MiHomecare - Woodingdean Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 July 2017

he inspection took place on 20 March 2017 and was announced.

MiHomecare – Woodingdean is a domiciliary care service based in Brighton and is part of a large corporate provider, MiHomecare. The service supports adults and people who are living with dementia or other conditions, to enable them to continue living in their own homes. Some people privately funded their care whilst others had their care funded by the local authority. At the time of the inspection 126 people were using the service, 120 of those were in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care.

The service had 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.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 16 March 2015. A breach of legal requirements was found and the service received a rating of requires improvement. We found inconsistencies in the systems in place to manage, monitor and improve the care and support provided to people, this included significant concerns in relation to on-going incidents of late and missed calls. Following the inspection the provider wrote to us to say what they would do in relation to the concerns found. On 25 July 2016 we carried out another announced, comprehensive inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they were meeting legal requirements. At that inspection there was a continuing breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, with regard to the monitoring, management and improvement of missed and late calls which were found to be frequent and on-going. We found breaches of legal requirements and the service received a rating of requires improvement. Another announced, comprehensive inspection took place on 20 March 2017, it was evident that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the Regulations. However, there were areas of practice in need of further improvement and those that had been implemented were required to be sustained and embedded in practice.

Quality assurance processes had improved and there was more oversight of the systems and processes to ensure that people were receiving a service they had a right to expect. However, daily records and medicine records for people had not been audited in a timely manner to assure the registered manager that people were receiving their medicines and care on time and in accordance with their care plan and medication prescribing guidelines.

Improvements had been made since the previous inspection with regard to people being able to choose if they received care form a male or female member of staff. However, peoples’ preferences had not always been respected due to staff sickness and at times people had received care from a male member of staff rather than their preferred female member of staff.

People told us that they felt safe. One person told us, “Oh yes I feel safe with them”. Staff had received induction training and had access to on-going training to ensure their knowledge was current and that they had the relevant skills to meet peoples’ needs. People were safeguarded from harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults at risk, they were aware of the policies and procedures in place in relation to safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns.

There were sufficient staff to meet peoples’ needs and people told us that staff were kind and caring. One person told us, “The carers are very polite and kind. I can’t speak highly enough of them, everyone has been so kind”. People confirmed that they were treated with respect and dignity and their privacy maintained.

Risk assessments had been undertaken and were regularly reviewed. They co

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was safe.

There were effective systems in place to ensure that people were cared for by staff that were suitable to work in the sector. Staff were aware of how to recognise signs of abuse and knew the procedures to follow if there were concerns regarding a person�s safety.

Risks to peoples� safety were assessed and appropriate action taken to ensure their safety.

People received their medicines on time, these were dispensed by staff that had undertaken relevant training and whose competence was assessed.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was effective.

People were involved in day-to-day decisions that affected their care. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the legal requirements in relation to gaining consent for people who lacked capacity and had worked in accordance with this.

People were cared for by staff that had received training and had the skills to meet their needs. People had access to health care services to maintain their health and well-being.

People were able to choose what they had to eat and drink and were provided with support according to their needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was caring.

People and relatives consistently commented on the kindness and caring nature of staff.

People were actively involved in the care that was provided to them. Staff had an awareness of peoples� individual needs and independence was encouraged.

Peoples� privacy and dignity were promoted and maintained. There was consistent feedback regarding the respectful nature of staff.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was not consistently responsive.

Peoples� preferences with regard to male or female staff were not always respected.

People received a personalised service that was centred on them. Changes in peoples� needs were recognised and appropriate actions taken.

Feedback from people and their relatives was welcomed and encouraged. Most people felt that their views and opinions were listened to and acted upon.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

Quality assurance processes monitored practice to ensure the delivery of high quality care and to drive improvement. However, these were not always completed in a timely manner.

People and staff were positive about the management and culture of the service.

People were treated as individuals, their opinions and wishes were taken into consideration in relation to the running of the service and the delivery of the care they received.