You are here

Archived: MHA Care at Home - St Helens Branch Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 August 2016

The inspection took place on the 21 and 23 June 2016 and was announced. The service was last inspected in March 2014, and was found to be meeting those standards we looked at.

The service provides domiciliary care support and support to people within an extra care setting. This is where support is delivered to people within their own flat. The service operates across three different sites within St Helens. At the time of the inspection there were 56 people receiving care and support from the service.

There service had a manager who had been registered with the CQC since March 2014. 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.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. People told us that there were sufficient staff to respond to emergencies and that staff had time to talk with them. Staffing rotas confirmed that staffing levels were consistent.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had undertaken training in safeguarding vulnerable people and knew how to report any concerns they may have, inside and outside the organisation.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Staff had received training in the safe management of medicines and received routine checks to ensure they were competent to do so. Medicines audits were carried out by the registered manager, and any issues identified were followed up and remedial action taken.

Staff had received training that ensured they had the appropriate skills and knowledge to carry out their roles effectively. The registered manager kept a record of staff training to ensure their skills and knowledge were up-to-date.

Care records contained information around people’s dietary requirements. This ensured that staff were aware of any support people may need during meal times. We observed examples where staff offered appropriate support to those people who needed it whilst they were eating their meals.

Staff were kind and respectful towards people. People told us that they had developed a good relationship with staff, and spoke very highly of them, commenting that they were “friendly”, and made them feel at ease. This helped ensure the development of positive relationships.

People’s confidentiality was respected. Care records that contained personal information were stored in a secure cabinet within a locked office.

People received personalised care and support. Care records contained details around people’s likes, dislikes and life history. There was also detailed information around their care and support needs, and how staff should respond to meet these needs. This ensured that staff had access to relevant information to allow them to provide the correct level of support.

The registered provider had a complaints policy in place which people were familiar with. People told us they knew how to make a complaint, and who to raise any concerns with. They also told us they felt confident their concerns would be listened to. The complaints procedure was available in the different schemes, and people received a copy of this information when they first started using the service.

People spoke positively about the service and the registered manager. Staff told us that they felt well supported and were aware of the management structure within the different schemes. Staff were encouraged to make suggestions around ways of improving the service, and there was an incentive scheme in place around this.

The registered provider and the registered manager both completed quality monitoring checks of the service on a routine basis. These focussed on areas such as care plans, medication and staff knowledge of key areas such as safeguarding. At the last quality monitoring check completed by the registered provider the service scored 90% which resulted in staff receiving a bonus.

Inspection areas



Updated 5 August 2016

The service was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff in place to meet people’s needs.

The registered provider had safe recruitment processes in place which ensured people were supported by people of good character.

People received safe care and support with taking their medication, from staff who had received appropriate training.



Updated 5 August 2016

The service was effective.

People’s rights and liberties were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Act, and had received training in this.

Staff had received the training the needed to carry out their role effectively.

People received the support they required with meal and drink preparation, which ensured that people were protected from the risk of malnutrition and dehydration.



Updated 5 August 2016

The service was caring.

People told us that staff were kind and caring in their approach.

People’s confidentiality was protected. Records containing people’s personal information was stored securely.

Staff were aware of how and when to access support from the local advocacy service. This helped ensured that people would be supported to express their views.



Updated 5 August 2016

The service was responsive.

Care records were personalised and people told us that staff adopted a personalised approach.

Records contained detailed and up-to-date information that allowed staff to respond to people’s needs appropriately.

The registered provider had a complaints procedure in place, and people told us that they would feel confident in making a complaint if they had to.



Updated 5 August 2016

The service was well-led.

There was a clear management structure in place with clear lines of accountability. Staff told us that they felt well supported by management.

There were quality monitoring systems in place which had successfully identified areas where improvement was needed. Follow up action had been taken to rectify any issues identified.