Metro Homecare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they were not always able to adequately meet people’s assessed needs. Whilst needs were assessed, people did not receive their support at the agreed times. People told us this impacted on the support they needed with their personal care. For example, one person told us they needed support with continence care but owing to inconsistencies in staff visit times, this need was not always met. They said, “Because of my health I need more support, but I need it to be regular and on time.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Whilst people’s care plans recorded how they wanted to be supported, we found people did not always receive their care when they wanted and needed it. This meant staff did not always deliver care in line with people’s recorded needs and preferences.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The provider shared information with other professionals to ensure people received the care they needed. They supported people to be in control of their own care. The registered manager told us staff liaised with services such as GP’s, pharmacies and social workers to ensure services were joined up and people received the services they needed.

A professional we spoke with told us, “Following a recent discussion regarding a person, the staff provided a prompt response by checking to make sure the person was well and in good health. Staff then provided immediate feedback about their findings.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Late call visits to people meant they did not always eat at consistent times, which had potential health impacts. Also, people did not always receive the food and fluids they needed at times of their choosing.

Staff supported people with meal preparation and understood people’s right to choose the food they wanted to eat. A staff member told us how they made sure people received food and hydration they need. They said, “We help them to make their food and drinks and in some cases we do it for them. We always make sure they have eaten and had a drink, and we record this.”

The provider did not always monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People did not always receive food and medicines when needed due to poor staff punctuality. This meant monitoring was not effective and people’s health outcomes were at risk owing to inconsistencies in the care some people received.

However, staff kept clear records of the care they delivered which included all aspects of the person’s care and support, detailing any changes as they were observed. The provider told us whenever they noticed a change to a person’s health, they spoke to the person about it and liaised with their families to share concerns. Wherever necessary, the staff would also liaise with health care professionals to ensure people accessed the services they needed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where people struggled to consent to their care, the provider involved those such as family members and other close relatives involved in people’s care. The provider had systems and policies in place which were in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which meant they knew how to support people who lacked capacity. Staff were knowledgeable and were able to tell us about the steps required to determine whether a person had capacity and the processes and people involved to help make decisions on behalf of people who lacked capacity.