You are here

Archived: Mears Care Mansfield Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 27 June 2018. Mears Care Mansfield is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It currently provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using Mears Care Mansfield receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

At the time of the inspection, 247 people received some element of support with their personal care. This is the service’s second inspection under its current registration. At the previous inspection on 23 June 2017 the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. An action plan was submitted which stated how the service would become compliant. At this inspection, they improved the overall rating to ‘Good’, however the question, ‘Is the service safe?’ remains at ‘Requires Improvement’.

Improvements had been made to the punctuality of the staff; however, people still felt staff arrival times could be improved further. Medicines were managed safely and staff recording errors were monitored and acted on, however the number of recording errors remained high. Improvements had been made to the way the risks associated with people’s care had been assessed and acted on. People told us staff made them feel safe when staff supported them. Robust staff recruitment processes were in place. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. The provider had processes in place to investigate accidents and incidents and to learn from mistakes.

People’s care was provided in line with current legislation and best practice guidelines. People felt staff understood how to support them. Records showed the number of staff with training that was out of date had significantly reduced and courses were booked where needed. Staff now received professional development and supervision. People’s nutritional needs were met. Other health and social care agencies were involved where further support was needed for people. 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. A review was currently underway to ensure all people had the required assessments in place where needed.

People liked the staff who came to their home and felt they were kind, caring and treated them with respect. People told us they were involved with decisions about their care and staff encouraged independence wherever possible. People told us they would like to have a more consistent team of staff to support them and the registered manager had taken action to address this. People’s records were handled in line with the Data Protection Act

Assessments of people’s needs were carried out before joining the service to ensure staff were able to support them effectively. Improvements had been made to ensure people received care that was in accordance with their personal preferences. People felt care staff responded to their complaints effectively although they felt the performance of office based staff could improve. The registered manager had put processes in place to act on this feedback. People’s diverse needs were discussed with them during their initial assessment and then during further reviews.

The registered manager had made significant improvements since the last inspection. They had ac

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Further improvement was needed to ensure all people received their calls on time. Medicine recording errors were assessed and action taken, however the frequency of the errors needed reducing further. People felt safe when staff supported them. Robust staff recruitment processes were in place. Improvements had been made to way risk was managed and reduced. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Accidents and incidents were investigated, reviewed, and acted on to prevent reoccurrence.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was effective.

People’s care was provided in line with recognised best practice guidelines. Staff training was now up to date and staff performance was now regularly assessed. People’s nutritional needs were met. The registered manager had formed productive relationships with local health and social care services. People’s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was caring.

People liked the staff. People were treated with dignity and respect.

People were involved with decisions about their care and staff encouraged people’s independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s care was now provided in line with their personal preferences. People’s needs were assessed prior to commencing with the service. Effective communication processes were in place to ensure people were not discriminated against. People’s complaints were responded to appropriately, although some people felt communication with the office needed improving.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 July 2018

The service was well led.

The registered manager had made improvements since the last inspection and had an on-going action place to continue the improvements. The provider supported the registered manager in making these improvements. Quality assurance systems were now robust and helped the registered manager identify any area themes that required action.

The registered manager carried out their role in line with their registration with the CQC. They ensured all notifiable incidents were reported to the CQC. People and staff were given the opportunity to comment on how the service could be developed and improved.