Merit Healthcare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection, we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs. Systems were in place to ensure staff had the time to travel between calls. Staff were positive they had received enough training to keep people safe and meet their needs. Systems were in place to monitor the safety and quality of care people received.

Staff demonstrated understanding of how to keep people safe from harm or potential abuse. People felt they were kept safe. Concerns raised were managed in a timely manner to keep people safe. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent from people prior to supporting them with any tasks. Records clearly demonstrated this was considered at all visits.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives were positive about how safe they felt and being asked for consent. Comments included, “[Staff] treat me with respect”, “Right from the start we have had an excellent service” and, “The carers make sure the door is locked when they leave.” However, a few examples were provided of staff delivering potentially less safe care. No harm was found, and appropriate action had been taken by the management in relation to these. This included sharing the concerns with the local authority when it was required.

Staff were able to share how they would recognise signs of potential abuse. They knew to escalate their concerns to the registered manager and felt it would be managed appropriately. One staff member said, “I listen to staff. Whatever they say if it is a safeguarding issue I will see any bruises or any marks. I ask them questions, then I report to the manager and keep information safe and explain their rights also.”

Staff sought consent from people prior to any task and records demonstrated this. One staff member said, “Consent means seeking permission, involving them in the decision and ensuring understanding of the task.”

Comments from other professionals included, “[Staff] have treated [people] with respect even in very challenging situations and remained professional in all interactions” and, “The management/senior staff members who I spoke to were very knowledgeable about the [person], their care needs and were open and transparent about the concerns they had for the [person].”

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People and their relatives were generally positive about staffing numbers and visit times. Systems were in place for staff to notify people if they were running late. Comments included, “It is unusual for [staff] to be late. They let the office know and the office tells me. What we normally do is ask on each visit who is coming at the next point, and they are able to say, they usually know” and, “Most of the time [they are on time], and if they are late, they usually give me a call to say they are going to be a bit late.”

Systems were in place to monitor visits including the travel times and the quality of care. When anomalies were identified action was taken. Staff told us they felt they had enough time to travel although roadworks and traffic could make them late. Systems were in place to inform the people when they were running late. Comments included, “[The management] have done it in a way that you have enough time to drive to the client”, “I think the time is ok as most of the travel time is not very far from each other” and, “We have enough time.”

Systems ensured staff received training in line with people’s needs. Records demonstrated staff had completed all training required. Staff had mixed feelings about their training. Comments included, “I think we should have more training”, “For training they mostly organised. Some of the certificates I did before I came…sometimes they organise people to come to the office for things like learning disabilities” and, “We have had a lot of training yeah, I have had a lot with Merit. Sometimes it is a week or 4 days in a classroom so that you can ask questions.” The registered manager explained that 1 staff member, who had recently left the service, had made contact to say they had not appreciated the quantity or quality of training provided by the service until they had moved to a different company.

Systems were in place to ensure staff had been through a safe recruitment. Staff confirmed they had received an interview, document checks, references from previous employers and an induction. The registered manager and care manager talked us through the support internationally recruited staff received when first entering the country. They understood the importance of explaining cultural differences to staff.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.