We carried out a review of the data available to us about People Matters on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about People Matters, you can give feedback on this service.
People Matters is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to children 13-18 years, children 4-12 years, people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, physical disability, older people and younger adults.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
Not everyone using the service receives a 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. At the time of our inspection there were four people in receipt of personal care from the service. The provider registered with the CQC on 1 November 2017 and this was the providers first inspection
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.
Medicines were not managed safely. On day one of the inspection one medicine was being administered but no records of administration had been completed and some staff administering this had not been trained in medicines management. Appropriate actions had been taken on the second day of the inspection to ensure safe management of medicines.
The provider had robust systems and procedures in place to keep people safe and staff were competent in their knowledge of what constituted abuse and how to safeguard people. There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff knew how to raise concerns should this be required.
Risk assessments had been completed and reviewed regularly. Accidents and incidents were managed effectively and actions taken to mitigate future risks.
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and safer recruitment procedures were being followed to ensure people were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.
Staff carried out training to ensure they had adequate skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. However, we found staff carried out certain tasks when they had not completed training to ensure their competence. Appropriate action had been taken on the second day of the inspection and the registered manager told us only trained staff would administer medicines.
Staff were supported with regular supervisions and appraisals. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and were encouraged to develop their skills and knowledge by completing specialist training or education.
Staff were caring, kind and respected peoples wishes. We saw people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. We found examples of how people had increased their independence following support from staff.
Care records showed people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and care plans were written in a person-centred way. Reviews were regularly carried out with people and their relatives.
Care plans included people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. We found people made choices about their care and support. Activities took place with people accessing the service to prevent social isolation.
People were supported to prepare their meals and to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Health professionals were involved in people’s care when required. Staff supported people to appointments and supported them in advance of these to reduce some people’s anxieties.
People’s privacy and dignity was respected. People were involved in their care planning and staff provided explanations to obtain consent from people.
We found that staff and the management understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Capacity assessments were carried out when required. However, we found one capacity assessment which had not been updated since 2014. The provider told us they would ensure this was updated.
The registered manager was aware of the provider’s complaints policy and procedures. No Complaints had been received and people told us they knew how to complain. There was an easy read complaints process in place for people to use.
Staff told us they felt supported by the management and felt confident to raise any concerns. The provider had positive community links. Some of these community links helped the provider to improve practice and embed new ideas into the service to drive improvements.
Regular meetings took place with people and staff within the provider’s company to obtain feedback and inform people of changes within the organisation.
The provider had their own values which were imbedded within the service and followed by staff.
We found the provider had incomplete governance systems in place and these could not ensure the quality and safety of the service. We made a recommendation for the provider to put additional governance systems in place to ensure all areas of care are monitored.