You are here

Archived: Mears Care Limited Leeds Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2017

This inspection took place on 17, 18 and 25 July 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care services and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office. We contacted people who used the service and staff by telephone on 18 July 2017 to ask for their views. On the 17 and 25 July we spent time at the office site, speaking to staff and reviewing relevant documentation.

Mears Care is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to people in their own homes within the Leeds area. Mears Care was registered with CQC in July 2016 and this was the first inspection of the service. The service provides care for older people and people living with dementia, mental health, physical disabilities and sensory impairment, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, older people, people who misuse drugs and alcohol, people with an eating disorder and younger adults. At the time of our inspection there were 272 people using this service.

The service had a manager although they were not the registered manager. The manager told us they are in the process of applying to the CQC for registration purposes. We checked this and saw the manager had recently had an interview with the CQC as part of this process. 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 found medicines were administered but that administration was not always documented correctly. Staff signatures to confirm they had supported people to take their medicines and other information written on the Medicines Administration Record Sheets (MARs) were not always clearly written. Not all MARs charts were audited monthly and the audits we did see were completed several months after they had been completed.

Governance structures were in place but these were not being followed in accordance with the provider’s procedures and policies. For example, audits for medicines were not being followed up with actions taken and not all supervisions had been completed within the provider’s policy timeframe.

The manager was compliant in notifying the CQC of all medication errors and some incidents. Services that provide health and social care to people are required to inform the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of important events that happen in the service in the form of a 'notification'.

Some people using the service did not have capacity. We found people’s care records did not include information to reflect that assessments had taken place where people lacked capacity, and there was no evidence that best interest’s decisions had taken place, where relevant. No systems were in place to monitor if a person’s capacity had been reviewed.

Staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s needs and there was consistency with the same staff attending care calls whenever possible. Staff were recruited in line with the providers policy, inductions took place and staff received appropriate training.

Risk assessments were completed and reviewed to support people with specific needs to avoid any harm.

People told us they felt safe when being supported by staff. People using the service felt confident to raise any safeguarding alerts and staff had a clear understanding of the relevant policies and procedures.

Where people required assistance, they were supported to eat, drink and maintain a balanced diet. People were also supported with their health needs and this was evidenced in care records. Staff told us they also supported people to attend hospital appointments if needed.

People using the service and staff had positive relationships and people told us they felt well cared for. People were encouraged to be independent

Inspection areas



Updated 27 September 2017

The service was not always safe.

The management of people's medicines was not always robust.

People told us they felt safe. Staff received training in how to protect people from abuse and how to respond if they suspected abuse was taking, or had taken place.

Risk assessments were in place for people who needed them and were specific to people's needs and their home environment.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people's needs and recruitment was on going.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2017

The service was not always effective.

Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, care plans did not evidence compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Not all staff had received supervision in line with the providers policy.

There was an induction and training programme in place for staff.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs.

People were supported to maintain their health and supported to access professionals, when needed.



Updated 27 September 2017

The service was caring.

People told us staff were caring. Positive relationships had been built between people using the service and staff.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and they were supported to be independent.

Staff involved people in their care planning.



Updated 27 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People were supported to pursue activities in their home although this was limited.

People received personalised care and support. They and the people that mattered to them, had been involved in identifying their needs, choices and preferences and how these should be met.

A complaints procedure was in place which had been followed. People using the service felt confident to complain if they had any concerns.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2017

The service was not always well led.

Audits were being completed on medicine administration records, but actions or outcomes had not been completed.

People using the service and staff spoke positively about the manager and felt supported.

Staff meetings were held and surveys asking people about a range of elements of the service delivered had been completed by people who used the service.