You are here

Archived: HomeCare (Mellor) Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 May 2013
Date of Publication: 14 June 2013
Inspection Report published 14 June 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 9 May 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

All the people that we spoke with told us they were happy with the care provided by the agency. People said that carers were competent and had a good understanding of their (or their loved one’s) care needs. One relative commented, ‘’We have been very, very happy with every carer we have ever had.’’ Another told us, ‘’They seem to be extremely well trained.’’

We viewed a selection of people’s care plans during the inspection. We noted that they provided a good level of information about people’s individual needs. In addition, people’s care plans stated their preferences and wishes about how their care was provided and daily records, which were completed by carers, showed that people’s wishes were respected.

We saw examples of good, person centred care planning, which encouraged staff to treat people as individuals and provide care tailored to their personal needs and wishes. Important details about people’s preferred daily routines and things that were important to them were included to enable staff to provide a personalised service.

Whilst plans we viewed were generally of good quality, we did note in one example, a lack of information regarding the support of a person with dementia. The provider may wish to review assessment and care planning processes and expand them to include further information about people’s individual needs in this area.

There were processes in place to assess risks to people in key areas such as, nutrition, mental health and medication. Where risks were identified there was guidance for staff in how to minimise them and keep people safe. Whilst we saw some good examples of risk assessments, the provider may wish to note that we did not see any formal assessments carried out specifically for people at risk of developing pressure sores. However, we were able to establish that preventative pressure care was carried out by staff, where appropriate.

Some of the care plans we viewed were those of people who had some complex needs. For example, we viewed the plan of one person who was at high risk of self harming and another of a person who engaged in some high risk behaviours. We noted that in these circumstances there were very good plans in place that provided clear guidance to staff and demonstrated effective joint working with community professionals such as Mental Health workers.

It was also pleasing to note that special arrangements were in place to ensure that only a small team of carers would be involved in the care of someone with complex needs. This helped ensure that people received their care from a consistent staff team that had a good understanding of their needs.