The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Match Options

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

246 Trelawney Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, SL3 7UD (01753) 548716

Provided and run by:
Match Options Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

10 September 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Match Options is a small domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of inspection only one person received a service. The provider also had an employment agency providing staff to the health and social care sector. This however was separate to the domiciliary care agency and not looked at as part of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Medicines were being administered safely in practice, but the recording of medicines was not always appropriate. Risks to the person supported had been identified and recorded in a risk management plan. However, the level of detail recorded was not always sufficient to safely manage the risks. Sufficient levels of staff were employed, and safe recruitment checks had been applied.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; however, the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. A recommendation has been made for the provider to address this.

Staff were able to attend relevant training and received supervision to monitor their ongoing practice. Positive comments were made about the caring and kind nature of staff and the support they provided. Staff encouraged people to be involved in their care and supported people in the way they chose.

Care plans were detailed about people’s preferred routines. Staff supported people to attend activities of their choosing. The complaints process was readily available for people; however, no complaints had been received.

The service was felt to be well-led. The registered manager encouraged transparency and regularly sought feedback on the staff and care provided. Quality monitoring systems were in place to identify any actions that needed to be addressed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was Good (report published 15 March 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

30 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Match Options is small a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people in their own homes. The agency provides support to people with a range of care needs, which include older people, people living with dementia and people with physical disabilities. On the day of our visit there were two people using the service.

The registered manager has been registered since February 2013. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our previous inspection in June 2015, we rated the service overall, ‘requires improvement’. We found breaches in Regulations 9, 11, and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because care records did not reflect changes in people’s care needs and did not adequately reflect people or their representatives’ views. Consent was sought from those who did not have legal powers to give it and systems in place to monitor the service were not robust.

During this visit we found the service had made improvements in the areas identified.

Relatives said their family members were protected from unsafe care. Comments included, “I have no real concerns” and “No problems in regards to staff.”

People were kept safe from abuse because staff undertook relevant training and demonstrated a good understanding of what procedures to follow when they suspected abuse had occurred. We noted safeguarding policy and procedures were in line with current legislation. Safe recruitment practices were in place and the service ensured there were sufficient staff to meet people’s care and support needs.

People received care from staff who received appropriate induction; training; and supervision. Staff encouraged people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions, to make choices. They told us they sought people’s consent before care was delivered. Relatives we spoke with confirmed this. People received support with their nutrition and hydration needs. This was supported by care records viewed and what staff had told us. Care records were in place to meet people’s specific health needs and these were regularly reviewed.

Relatives told us they were happy with the care their family members received. “They (Staff) are very professional and caring” and “[Name of staff] is very nice and considerate.”

Caring relationships were formed with staff and the people they provided care and support to. People’s privacy and dignity was respected; promoted and they were supported to maintain their independence.

Relatives said the care delivered was personalised because staff knew their family members well.

People were involved in care planning decisions. People were supported to participate in meaningful activities. Care records documented people were given information on how to make a complaint should the need arise. However, relatives said they had no need to do this.

Relatives gave positive feedback about how the service was managed and staff felt supported by the registered manager. Systems were in place to manage, monitor and improve the quality of the service. The service used various ways to obtain feedback from people and those who represented them.

8 & 9 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Match Options is small a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people in their own homes. On the day of our visit there were five people using the service. The agency provides support to people with a range of care needs, which include older people, people living with dementia and people with physical disabilities.

This inspection took place on 8 and 9 June 2015 and was announced. We gave the provider was given 48 hours’ notice and told them the inspection was going to take place. We gave this notice to ensure there would be senior management available at the service’s office to assist us in accessing information we required during the inspection.

The registered manager has been registered since February 2013. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service did not ensure all staff’s training was kept up to date. Safeguarding policy and procedures did not reflect current guidance. People said they felt safe from abuse and what to do if they had concerns. The service undertook safe recruitment practices to ensure people received care and support from staff that were of good character. Where risks were identified risk assessments were put in place and regularly reviewed. There was sufficient staff to provide care to people. People said staff arrived at their homes promptly. Appropriate measures were in place to ensure staff administered medicines to people safely. We have made a recommendation that the provider seek guidance in regards to staff training and ensure safeguarding policy and procedures are in line with current legislation.

Not all staff had undertaken relevant training and could not confidently demonstrate their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The service sought consent before any care, treatment and support was delivered. However the service did not ensure people’s representatives had the legal powers to make decisions on their behalf. People received care and support from staff who received appropriate induction, training, and supervision. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. The service worked in partnership with other health professionals to ensure people received effective care and support.

People valued the care delivered and spoke positively about the staff. They told us staff were caring and treated them with respect and dignity. People were involved in the planning of their care, encouraged to exercise choice and maintain their independence where possible.

Reviews of care records did not adequately reflect the views of people whose care was being reviewed. We saw reviews undertaken without people’s signatures. Changes in people’s circumstances were not consistently updated in people’s care records. People said they were involved in decisions made about their care and support needs. Staff demonstrated good understanding of people’s care needs and family history. Care records showed people’s preferences on how their care was to be provided. People knew how to make a complaint if they had concerns.

Systems in place to manage, monitor and improve the quality of the service were not robust. For example, Care records and records that related to the management to the service were not factual, accurate and up to date. People and their relatives told us the service was well managed. Staff knew how to raise concerns and felt confident to do this. The service sought feedback from people and those who represented them.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.