You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at MiHomecare - Finchley. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 October 2018

This inspection took place on 25, 26 and 27 June 2018. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service primarily to older adults and people with physical disabilities.

Not everyone using MiHomecare – Finchley receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection MiHomecare - Finchley provided domiciliary care and support for 456 people in their own home. Following the inspection, the deputy manager informed us that 381 people received a regulated activity.

At our last inspection on 4 and 11 May 2017 the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Regulation 12 which related to the safe management of medicines and providing sufficient information on people’s personal risks to ensure that staff were able to minimise the risk and Regulation 17 which related to monitoring and auditing people’s medicines and daily care records. At this inspection we found that the provider had addressed these breaches.

We also made a recommendation around capturing and documenting information on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in relation to people using the service. At this inspection we found that the service had addressed this and MCA/DoLS was well documented and managed.

The service is now rated ‘Good’.

There was a manager in post. However, at the time of the inspection the manager was on planned leave. The manager was in the process of applying to CQC to become the registered manager and was registered on 17 July 2018. The inspection was supported by the deputy manager. A registered manger is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of law; as does the provider.

People and relatives were positive and felt that they were safe with the staff that visited to provide care.

People had person centred risk assessments based on their individual needs. Risk assessments were detailed and provided staff with guidance on how to minimise known risks.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report any concerns. The company had a dedicated whistleblowing phone number for staff, relatives and people. Staff understood how to whistleblow if they had any concerns.

Medicines were safely managed. Staff had received training in medicines and were competency assessed each year. Medicines auditing was effective and had improved since the last inspection.

Staff were recruited safely. The service completed necessary checks to ensure that staff were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

Staff were aware of infection control and how to keep people safe from the spread of infection. The service provided gloves and aprons for staff when delivering personal care.

People received continuity of care and often had the same care staff visiting them. People and relatives told us that staff were on-time and stayed the correct amount of time.

Accidents and incidents were well managed and any actions or learning documented.

Staff received an induction when starting work. Part of the induction included shadowing more experienced staff. However, whilst staff told us they did shadow during their induction this was not well documented.

Staff received regular supervision, appraisal and training to support them in their role.

People were supported to express their views and were actively involved in making decisions about their care. Where appropriate, relatives had been involved in planning people’s care.

People were

Inspection areas



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how they could recognise abuse and knew how to report it appropriately.

There were sufficient staff to ensure people�s needs were met. People experienced a continuity of care.

Risks for people who used the service were identified and comprehensive risk assessments were in place to ensure known risks were mitigated against.

Staff were safely recruited.

People were protected against the risk of infection.

People were supported to have their medicines safely. Staff had been trained in medicines and how to administer them safely.

Staff arrived on time and stayed the correct amount of time for care visits.

Accidents and incidents were investigated and actions taken where necessary.



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was effective. Staff had on-going training to effectively carry out their role.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and how this impacted on the care they provided.

Staff received supervision and appraisals. People were supported by staff who regularly reviewed their working practices.

People�s healthcare needs were monitored and referrals made when necessary to ensure wellbeing.

Where identified, people were supported to have enough to eat and drink so that their dietary needs were met.



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was caring. People were supported and staff understood individual�s needs.

People were treated with respect and staff maintained privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged to have input into their care.

People and their relatives told us that staff were patient and kind in their interactions.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was responsive. People's care was person centred and care plans were detailed.

Staff were knowledgeable about individual support needs, their interests and preferences.

Complaints were responded to in an effective and timely manner. People and relatives knew how to complain.



Updated 13 October 2018

The service was well led. There was good staff morale and guidance from the provider.

There were regular staff meetings.

People and relatives were actively encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of care.

Systems were in place to ensure the quality of the service people received was assessed and monitored.