• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Meyers Care Agency

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Sandringham Enterprise Hub, 48 Sandringham Drive, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, Bedfordshire, LU5 5UP 07935 180416

Provided and run by:
Miss Laucina Meyers

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

29 July 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection was announced and took place on 29 July 2016.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 27 January 2016. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Meyers Care Agency on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

During our inspection in January 2016; we found that staff had not been recruited safely to work at the service. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had not been completed prior to members of staff commencing work and references obtained had not been validated or sought from an appropriate source. There were also gaps in the employment history of staff and application forms had not been completed fully. This meant that safe recruitment processes were not followed to ensure that people were protected from the employment of unsuitable members of staff.

We also identified that staff did not always receive adequate training or induction to carry out their roles effectively or receive appropriate levels of supervision or observation. This meant that people were not always supported by trained, competent members of staff.

In addition we found that the provider had not consistently implemented effective systems or processes to assess, monitor and improve the safety of the services being provided. Monitoring systems and processes were completed but did not identify any actions to make improvements when required.

Medicine audits had been completed but routinely failed to identify recording errors. Changes required to medicine administration records (MAR) to ensure that they accurately reflected the medicines being administered were also not identified.

Furthermore, we identified that a local authority inspection had taken place and no action had been taken to address areas identified for improvement or the completion of the required action points.

Meyers Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the agency was providing a service to five people.

The service had a registered manager who is also the provider. 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.

During this inspection, we found that safe recruitment procedures were in place. A recruitment policy was in place and a flowchart detailing each stage of the recruitment process to be followed had been implemented. An audit of staff files had been conducted and the records that we viewed were complete and the necessary pre-employment checks had been completed. However no new staff had been recruited to the service or commenced employment so the provider was unable to fully demonstrate any improvements they had made to the safety of the service since our last inspection.

We reviewed staff records and found that staff had received supervision and an appraisal meeting had been held. The provider also had completed competency checks on the performance of all staff. A review of all training completed by staff had been conducted and the provider had registered staff to complete further training. Records relating to training were consistent and fully completed.

We reviewed the audit and quality monitoring systems in place, and found that these had been improved. The medicine administration records (MAR) in place were more effective, audit checks were taking place and issues were identified and addressed. We also found the provider had taken action to address the areas for improvement identified in the local authority inspection.

27 January 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 27 January and 1 February 2016 and was announced.

Meyers Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes in the Dunstable area. At the time of our inspection there were five people receiving care from the service.

There was a registered manager in 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 had last received an inspection in February 2014 and was compliant.

During our inspection we identified several breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of the report.

People told us they were cared for by staff who were kind and compassionate and were able to meet their needs. People were treated with dignity and respect. People had care plans in place which were detailed and regularly reviewed to meet people’s changing needs. People and their relatives were not however always included in these reviews and were not always aware of what was in their care plans. Risk assessments were completed and were robust enough to keep people safe. People provided consent to receiving care, but staff did not always understand the principles of the mental capacity act.

People told us that staff received training to support them to provide care. Training records were inaccurate and certificates were not always made available. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs at the times allocated and calls were not regularly missed. However missed calls were not always recorded so this could not be verified.

Staff were not recruited safely by the provider. DBS checks were not always completed prior to staff commencing employment and the manager did not undertake risk assessments for staff with criminal convictions on their record. References were not appropriately sought from previous employers and gaps in employment were not accounted for during interviews. Staff employed by the agency did not always receive adequate levels of supervision or observation.

People’s medicines were administered by trained staff but records were erratic, not always accurate and had gaps in recording. The provider had a complaints policy in place and people knew who to complain to if necessary. There was a quality monitoring system in place, but there were inefficient auditing systems in place to identify and make improvements. People were positive about the management of the service.

26 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection to review the actions taken by the provider to address our concerns following the inspection in August 2013. We visited the agency and spoke to staff, the registered manager, and also spoke to two out of eleven people using the service to seek their views.

We found that care plans had been expanded to include information on people's needs and assessments of risks. There was detailed information about each visit made to the person using the service. One person told us the care staff were "Very nice, friendly, and we have a good laugh."

We looked at medication processes and found staff had received additional training, records were completed correctly and a comprehensive medication procedure had been developed.

The rota, used to evidence the deployment of staff, had been revised so that calls and timings were detailed and it was possible to track which staff were responsible for each call. People told us staff were always punctual, carried out the tasks required and stayed for the time allotted.

Previously, the quality assurance system had been in need of significant improvement. The provider had put in place additional systems to demonstrate that the service was reviewed. There were audits in place for areas such as staff training needs, medication delivery and care planning. We found people's views were also sought in feedback questionnaires. People had made comments such as "The service is very good." and "Your staff are lovely."

5 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection of Meyers Care Agency on 5 August 2013. At the time of our inspection the agency was providing care to 10 people. The manager and four care staff were employed to provide the care.

We spoke with three people who received care and the relative of another person. Everyone told us the care was good and they wouldn't want to change it. One person said. "They do more than is expected of them and have the time to sit and chat". However we had been made aware that people had chosen to leave this service because the care was not consistent and calls had been missed. The lack of detail in the care planning documentation in some of the files we looked at could lead to an inconsistent standard of care being provided.

The service agreed to support people with the administration of medication, however there was no documentation to indicate that all staff had received the correct training. In addition, the documentation used by the staff when they administered medication did not clearly record that they had given the correct medication at the correct time.

Staff made their visits but not always at the time the person using the service expected or at the time detailed in their care agreement for them to attend. One person said, "They are a bit 'willy nilly' with when they come to me, and I don't always know who it will be."

The service did not have robust processes to check the quality and safety of the care they provided to people.

3, 4 January 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection on 3 January and 4 January 2013, we spoke with three people using the service, or their relatives. We also spoke with the manager, who was providing the majority of care to people due to the service being newly established.

People we spoke with said that care workers listened to them and respected their wishes. Everyone was happy with the care they were receiving and said that the care staff carried out all the tasks they needed them to do. They told us they had regular carers which they appreciated, and described care staff as 'very punctual' and 'very caring.'

People we spoke with told us they felt safe and no one had concerns about any of the care workers visiting their homes.

They all knew how to raise concerns about the service if they needed to.