Archived: Mint Quality Care

Updated 28 November 2014

We carried out this inspection between 15 August and 4 September 2014. The inspection team consisted of an inspector and an expert by experience who had experience of services that support older people.

The inspector visited the service on 15 August and 4 September to look at records around how people were cared for and how the service was managed. The expert by experience carried out telephone interviews with 15 people and the inspector met three people in their homes. We spoke with two care staff at the homes of people who used this service and spoke with three staff by telephone.

During our inspection we also spoke with the carer manager and the registered manager of the agency. We asked people for their views of the service and observed interactions between people who used the service and the staff who were supporting them. We looked at the care records for six people and also looked at records that related to how the service was managed.

The registered manager of the agency had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the information in the PIR. We also contacted the local authority social work teams to obtain their views.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 28 November 2014

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to look at the overall quality of the service.

This was an announced inspection, carried out between 15 August and 4 September 2014. We announced this inspection at short notice because we needed to check that the registered manager, or another senior person in the service, would be available to speak with us at the time of our visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Mint Quality Care provides personal care and support to adults living in in Kendal, South Lakeland and the surrounding areas. The services offered by the agency include personal care, shopping, housework and preparing meals. The agency provided support to people who arranged and paid for their own care. The service did not provide support directly purchased by the local authority.

At the time of our inspection, the service provided support to 45 people and employed 15 care staff. During our inspection we spoke with 15 people by telephone and, with their agreement, we visited three people in their own homes. We also spoke with five care staff, the carer manager of the service and the registered manager.

We last inspected this service in November 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.

We asked people who used this agency and the staff who supported them for their views of the service and we observed how the staff interacted with people in their homes. During our visit to the service we looked at the care records for six people and looked at records that related to how the service was managed.

People who used this service were safe. The care staff knew how to identify if a person may be at risk of harm and the action to take if they had concerns about a person’s safety.

The care staff knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People who used the service, and those who were important to them, were included in planning and agreeing to the care provided. The decisions people made were respected. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives.

People received care from a small team of staff who they knew and who knew them. The registered manager had good procedures for informing people which staff would be carrying out each visit. This meant people knew who would be coming to their homes.

People were treated with kindness and respect. People we spoke with told us, “I have had nothing but kindness and thoughtfulness from anyone who has been sent to me from Mint, [Mint Quality Care]”.

People who needed support to prepare their meals received this. People told us that the care staff prepared the meals they requested and said they enjoyed the food prepared.

The registered manager used safe recruitment systems to ensure that new staff were only employed if they were suitable to work in people’s homes. The staff employed by the service were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They told us they would be confident reporting any concerns to a senior person in the service.

There were sufficient staff, with appropriate experience, training and skills to meet people’s needs. The service was well managed, the registered manager set high standards and took appropriate action if these were not met. This ensured people received a safe service that promoted their rights and independence. The registered manager was knowledgeable about their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code. They showed that they knew how to ensure the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions themselves were protected.