You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 June 2017

This announced inspection took place on 5 May 2017. My Carer is a domiciliary care agency providing support and care to people in their own homes throughout the Wantage and Faringdon area of Oxfordshire. At the time of our inspection My Carer was providing services to 68 people.

There were two registered managers in place. 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.

We received some extremely positive feedback about the service. People, their relatives and healthcare professionals told us the quality of the care and support provided by My Carer surpassed all their expectations.

People received safe care from staff who had been appropriately trained to protect people and identify signs of abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns and followed the provider's policies in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing. Robust recruitment procedures helped to ensure only suitable staff were employed at the service.

Risks were assessed, managed and reviewed to help ensure people's safety. Staff were deployed appropriately and capacity of staffing hours was closely monitored. People were assisted with their medicines safely and told us they received them on time.

The provider valued their staff team and endeavoured to take steps to retain and develop staff to their full potential. They believed this was the key to delivering high quality, consistent care. A number of measures had been employed to recognise the contribution staff made and this was appreciated by staff who told us they felt valued and respected.

People’s rights were recognised, respected and promoted. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and we saw people’s consent was sought routinely. Staff were knowledgeable about the rights of people to make their own choices. This was reflected in the way the care plans were written and the way in which staff supported and encouraged people to make decisions when delivering care and support.

Staff supported people to choose food they liked and to eat healthily. People received enough food and fluids to remain healthy and staff monitored this when required. People had adapted equipment to help them eat independently, if they needed it. People had detailed plans to help staff and health professionals provide the care and support they needed to remain healthy and manage any existing health conditions

People were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. Where people required support with their food and drink, medicines or personal care, the level of support they needed was identified and assessed. The aim of this procedure was to promote people’s independence by enabling them to do as much for themselves as possible without making them feel burdened. People received personalised care, tailored to their individual needs.

People and relatives were delighted with the kindness and thoughtfulness of staff which exceeded their expectations of how they would be cared for and supported. People explained how staff went over and above what they expected from them and they couldn't ask for anything more. People told us the support they received significantly improved their well-being.

People we talked to consistently referred to the registered managers and staff as kind and caring people. They told us they valued their relationships with the staff who supported them and the support provided often exceeded what they had requested.

The service was extremely responsive to people’s needs and wishes even if the support people needed proved to exceed their contracted hours. People told us that staff went over and above the call of duty and people said this made a great difference to their l

Inspection areas



Updated 10 June 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were confident in recognising safeguarding concerns and potential abuse and were aware of their responsibilities to protect people.

Risks to people's well-being were assessed, managed and regularly reviewed.

Medicines were administered safely.



Updated 10 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were well trained and supported through regular supervision.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how this applied to their daily work.

People received support with their dietary needs in line with their choice and health requirements. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when they needed to.



Updated 10 June 2017

The service was exceptionally caring.

People told us they were treated with utmost kindness and compassion and their privacy and dignity were always respected.

Staff we spoke with valued their relationships with people they supported and regularly went the extra mile. People told us the support they received from staff improved their well-being.

Care staff respected people's individuality and encouraged them to maintain their independence to live the lives they wanted.



Updated 10 June 2017

The responsiveness of the service was outstanding.

People's care and support were personalised and designed to promote quality of life and to meet their needs and preferences. People received support to set and achieve goals for themselves.

The service went the extra mile in providing people with a wide range of activities to prevent social isolation. People told us they were delighted by the events organised by the service.

People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint.



Updated 10 June 2017

The service was well-led.

The management had produced outstanding characteristics in the caring and responsive domains.

People, their families and staff told us they thought the service was very well-led.

The provider's philosophy, vision and values were shared by all staff, which resulted in a culture that valued people's individual experiences and abilities.

There were robust systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service people received. People and their relatives were involved in these processes and in the development of the service.