All inspections: Moorcare - Care Quality Commission

We undertook an announced inspection of Moorcare on 03 December 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our visit to ensure the manager of the service would be available. At the last inspection in September 2013 we found the provider met the regulations we looked at.

Moorcare provides personal care services to people in their own homes. The agency is managed and owned by the Leeds Jewish Welfare Board. The agency provides a service in Moortown and surrounding areas to older people and some younger adults. At the time of our inspection 70 people were receiving a personal care service.

A registered manager was in post and present for the 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.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff told us they were able to speak with the registered manager if they had any concerns. The service completed spot checks on staff whilst they worked and formal supervisions.

People told us they felt safe using the service. People said their call times were adhered to. We saw policies and practice that ensured people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and felt well supported by them.

Robust recruitment processes were in place which ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to protect vulnerable adults. They told us they had attended safeguarding training and were aware of the policies in place regarding reporting concerns.

We saw staff had been trained in the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and they had a good understanding of the principles of the Act. The registered manager had a training matrix which identified all the training needs for staff.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage the medicines of the people who used the service.

Staff supported people to healthcare appointments and provided personal care as required to meet people’s needs. People were supported with meals and drinks in their home and were given choices in what they would like.

Moorcare had a complaints policy in place. People who used the service, their relatives and staff knew how to complain. Complaints and compliments were dealt with in accordance with the policy.

There was an accidents and incidents file in the office which had an updated policy in place. At the time of the inspection there had been no accidents or incidents. This was confirmed by the staff and people we spoke with on the day of inspection.

The registered manager did not have effective audits in place for staff supervisions, appraisals or training. This was due to unforeseen staff management issues, the registered manager and the supervisors were looking into ensuring that all audits were in place and effective for the service at the time of our inspection.

During this visit, we visited three people who used the service in their own homes, spoke with seven people, three relatives, five staff members, looked at the results of the service user satisfaction questionnaires, seven staff files and eight people's case records.

People told us that they were happy with the care they received from staff. One person who used the service said, 'They look after me brilliantly, I wouldn't be here without them. Sometimes they stay late if they haven't finished. They have time for you.'

One relative commented, 'We stressed at the start that continuity was very important to us and they have struck to this throughout. They really do listen.'

People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs.

The service had a system in place to monitor and audit the service provided.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

We spoke with ten people who used the service or who were representatives of people who used the service. They told us they were very satisfied with the care and support received. They said they got regular care workers who were prompt and punctual. Their comments included:

'They are so good and clearly know what they are doing.'

'Very good very reliable, never let you down.'

'Treated with such dignity and thought.'

We saw records that showed people who used the service and their representatives were involved in developing their own plans of care. People we spoke with said they understood their care and support plans and that staff had explained things well to them.

They spoke highly of the staff and said they were treated well. Their comments included:

'Lovely staff, all so nice and polite.'

'Experienced staff, they know what they are doing.'

'(Name of person) is always so happy to see them, big beaming smile, lets me know she is happy with them.'

Representatives of people who used the service and people who used the service said they felt they were 'in good hands' and were reassured by the professionalism of staff and the management team.

We spoke with five staff and the manager of the service. They all said people received good care and their needs were appropriately met. They told us people's rights and choices were respected and good systems were in place to make sure people's privacy, dignity, and independence were promoted.

Archived: Moorcare

All Inspections

3 December 2015

During a routine inspection

13 September 2013

During a routine inspection

10 September 2012

During a routine inspection