• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

MNA Home Care Services LTD

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Sabichi House, 5 Wadsworth Road, Perivale, Greenford, Middlesex, UB6 7JD (020) 8537 3256

Provided and run by:
MNA Home Care Services Limited

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

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about MNA Home Care Services LTD on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about MNA Home Care Services LTD, you can give feedback on this service.

14 July 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

MNA Home Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care and support agency for people living in their own homes. The majority of people receiving support had their care funded by local authorities. At the time of the inspection the service provided support for approximately 296 people. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider had systems and processes to help keep people safe including risk assessments and risk management plans. Medicines were managed safely. The provider had systems to manage infection prevention and control including the effective use of personal protective equipment. COVID-19 testing and information around vaccinations were in place to help protect staff and people against the spread of the virus.

There were systems in place for managing incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns to help improve the service. There were also effective systems, such as audits and spot checks, for monitoring and improving the quality of the service.

The provider liaised with other professionals to help ensure people’s health and wellbeing needs were met. Stakeholders indicated the management team was approachable and responded to feedback from them to make sure people received appropriate care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 20 November 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a focused inspection. We looked at the safe and well-led key questions to check whether people were receiving a safe and quality service.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service remains good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for MNA Care Services LTD on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

17 October 2017

During a routine inspection

This comprehensive inspection took place on 17, 18 and 19 October 2017 and was announced. We gave the registered manager two working days’ notice as the location provided a service to people in their own homes and we needed to confirm the registered manager would be available when we inspected.

The last inspection took place in August 2016 and the service was rated ‘good’ in all five key questions and overall. However the last inspection took place at Research House and the service had since moved to a new location. This was the first inspection at the new location.

MNA is a domiciliary care agency that provides care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 562 people using the service. The service offered support to a range of people, for example, people living with dementia, and the support hours varied depending on people’s need. Services were mainly commissioned by the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Harrow.

The service had a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was also one of the directors and owners of the service.

People using the service said they felt safe. Care workers we spoke with knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. They had the relevant training, supervision and appraisals to develop the necessary skills to support people using the service.

People had risk assessments and risk management plans in place to minimise risks. Incidents and accidents were recorded. Learning outcomes were not recorded on the incident and accident form but the registered manager agreed to update the form to include this information.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However the provider was not always consistent in ensuring every person who required it, had a completed mental capacity assessment to evidence that they did not have the capacity to make decisions about their care. The registered manager said they would address this.

There was a policy and procedure in place for the management of medicines which was adhered to by care workers.

People’s dietary requirements were met and we saw evidence that relevant health care professionals were involved to maintain people’s health and wellbeing.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and care plans identified people’s cultural needs, how they liked to be addressed and how they wanted their support delivered.

People were involved in their care plans and making day to day decisions. People told us they generally had the same care workers and this provided consistency of care.

People using the service and care workers said the managers were accessible and responded to concerns.

The service had a number of systems in place to monitor, manage and improve service delivery. This included a complaints system, audits, care worker observations and satisfaction surveys.