Archived: MiHomecare - Carterton

MiHomecare - Carterton is registered as a domiciliary care agency and as such provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection about 60 people were receiving services.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

Appropriate actions were taken to ensure people’s safety was maintained. Risks to people had been identified, assessed and were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed. The registered provider followed safe and robust recruitment procedures. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely.

People received effective care. Staff were supported to undertake training needed for their professional development, including nationally recognised qualifications. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals which enabled them to develop their understanding of good practice and to fulfil their roles effectively. Where people were unable to make certain decisions about their care, the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. People were supported to have their health needs met by health and social care professionals, including their GP and a speech and language therapist (SALT). People were offered a healthy balanced diet and when people required support to eat and drink, this was provided in line with relevant professionals’ guidance.

The service continued to provide support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and treated them with respect. People had developed positive relationships with staff and were treated in a caring and respectful manner. People were supported to be as independent as they possibly could be.

The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. When concerns had been raised, they had been dealt with effectively to the complainants’ satisfaction.

The service was led by an acting manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. There was a positive culture that valued people, relatives and staff. Staff were given appropriate responsibility which was continuously monitored and checked by the registered manager. A system to monitor, maintain and improve the quality of the service was in place.

The home had been previously inspected on 2 April 2015 and four breaches of the regulations had been found. At this inspection we aimed to see what work had been completed to ensure the quality and safety of the service had improved. The provider had told us that their action plans assumed they would complete all the actions required to meet the regulations by October 2015. During our inspection on 15 April 2016 we found that all the recommended actions had been completed.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People were kept safe by staff who had a thorough understanding of their responsibilities with regard to protecting people from harm or abuse. Care was planned and delivered with particular attention paid to ensure people were protected against avoidable harm.

The number of staff were sufficient to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff were employed according to robust recruitment procedures. Pre-recruitment checks had been made to ensure that new staff were suitable to support people in their own homes and maintain people’s safety. However, we found that on one occasion gaps in employment history were not fully explored and explained.

Staff arrived on time and stayed for the time scheduled. Staff members were suitably trained to keep people safe and meet their needs. People were supported to have a good quality of life by staff who had the experience and knowledge necessary to undertake their responsibilities. The service put emphasis on the continuity and consistency of care.

During our inspection we found that a newly employed starter was shadowing another staff member for whom it was their first job in the care sector.

The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They were knowledgeable about protecting legal rights of people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. The service acted in accordance with legal requirements to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Staff knew the people they were supporting, their needs and expectations, and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People were involved in making decisions about their care.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot checks and internal audits. We found that people were satisfied with the service they received.

The staff were pleased to work for the provider and felt supported in their role. The provider promoted an open culture where both staff and people using the service could raise concerns without fear of being frowned upon. People knew how to complain and felt their complaints would be investigated and responded to.

People who use the service said that their privacy and dignity were respected. One person told us that carers were 'very respectful'. Another person said 'Carers are very good to me.'

People who use the service were positive about the carers and the service provided. One person told us 'They help me when I need it.' A relative told us 'We're very happy with the carers' performance.'

People we spoke to said that the service they received supported their safety.

There were enough appropriately trained and skilled staff to meet the needs of people who use the service.

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.