You are here

Manorcourt Homecare Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Manorcourt Homecare. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 20 December 2018

This inspection visit took place on 7th November 2018 and was announced.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection around 100 people were using the service.

There was no registered manager working at the service. They had recently resigned from their post. 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 service was being managed by the care manager who had been working for the service for several years. Their intention is to put in an application to register as the manager soon.

At the last inspection of Manorcourt Care Watton, we rated the service overall as good. We did however ask the provider to make improvements in some areas. These were in relation to being more responsive to people’s preferences regarding the times of their care calls and to ensure that all appropriate guidance was in place for staff to follow in relation to meeting people’s needs. At this inspection we found the required improvements within these areas had not been made. Therefore, the overall rating for the service had now been changed to requires improvement.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and there were enough staff to cover people’s care visits. No care visits had been missed within the last three months. Improvements had been made to staffing levels and the manager was actively looking to improve the scheduling of calls to meet people’s preferences with regards to the times they received them.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. They treated people with dignity and respect. Where supported with eating and drinking, the staff made sure people received enough to meet their needs.

The staff took good precautions to protect people from the risk of infection and people received their medicines when they needed them. The auditing of this area had recently improved.

Consent had been obtained from people in line with the relevant legislations and when required, they had been supported with their healthcare needs.

People had been involved in making decisions about their care and had access to information on how to complain. People gave us mixed views as to whether they felt listened to and their complaints dealt with to their satisfaction.

Staff had received enough training and supervision to provide people with effective care. They were happy working at the service and felt supported. There was an open culture where they and people could raise concerns without fear.

Although people were happy with most aspects of the support they received, some again told us their care calls were made at inconsistent times which had an impact on their lifestyle and wellbeing. People’s care needs had been assessed and in most areas, there was clear guidance for staff to follow so they could provide support that people needed. However, there was a lack of information in relation to how staff should deal with catheter, stoma and diabetic care which increased the risk of people receiving inappropriate care.

The provider’s governance systems had not been effective at ensuring that these areas had been improved adequately since our last inspection. Also, they had not identified that some incidents had not been reported or investigated appropriately. This was a lost opportunity to learn from incidents. There was a new manager in post. They had recently made some changes to the current systems used to monitor the quality of care people received which demonstrated some improvements. These now need to be consistently applied across the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 20 December 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Incidents had not always been reported or thoroughly investigated to enable lessons to be learnt.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and from the spread of infection.

There were enough staff available to complete people’s care visits.

Improvements to medicines management had been identified and were being implemented.

Risks to people’s individual safety had been managed well.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and supervision to provide people with effective care.

Where people required support with eating/drinking and to maintain their health, this was provided.

Consent was sought from people in line with the relevant legislation.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and respect. Their dignity was upheld.

People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in their care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 20 December 2018

People had been involved in the assessment of their needs. Most of these were being met but some people received their call visits at inconsistent times that were not in line with their preference.

People knew how to raise concerns or complaints but the response to these was mixed.

People were supported at the end of their life.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 20 December 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Not all governance processes in place were effective at monitoring the quality of care people received. However, this was improving.

People and staff were involved and engaged in the development of the service.

Links with the community had been established and the service worked with other agencies for the benefit of people using the service.

The staff felt supported and found the management open and approachable.