• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: MiHomecare - Okehampton

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Unit 2 Jacobspool House, 11 West Street, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 1HQ

Provided and run by:
MiHomecare Limited

All Inspections

20 & 25 August 2015

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of MiHomecare - Okehampton on 20 and 25 August 2015. We told the provider two days before our visits that we would be coming to ensure the information we needed would be available. Mihomecare - Okehampton is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people in their own homes in the Okehampton, Tavistock and Crediton areas. MiHomecare Limited has 40 domiciliary care services across the country with 29 in the South of England. At the time of our inspection between 50 and 60 people were receiving a personal care service from Mihomecare – Okehampton.

We last inspected the agency in April 2014 and found no breaches in the regulations we looked at. However, the April 2014 inspection did not include us checking the outstanding breach of the registered manager not notifying us of serious incidents. This was because of the brief timescale between the breach and that inspection. However, we were notified of serious incidents, as required, from that date.

The service is required to have a registered manager. 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. At the time of this inspection the manager of MiHomecare – Okehampton was completing their registration.

The arrangements and instruction for care workers about handling medicines for people were not clear and had led to medicine being administered which should not have been.

The organisation had auditing systems in place but they were not fully effective. For example, some people’s care plans, which should provide care workers with accurate information about people’s needs and wishes, were not up to date. 

The visit arrangements had been reviewed and updated since an internal investigation into staff travel times. Most people felt the staffing arrangements had improved and were satisfactory. One person said, “Time keeping is getting better and most carers arrive on time now. Carers now stay for the full time”.

Care workers were clear how to protect people from abuse and there was clear information for staff on how to alert concerns.

Risks were assessed and kept under regular review. These included hazards within people’s home and the risk from falling.

Care was delivered with people’s consent. Care workers explained to people about risks to their welfare and involved family members in decisions where this was in the person’s best interest.

Care workers were complimentary about their induction and training. They were supported and supervised in their work. A district nurse said, “They’re on the ball; don’t panic, do things appropriately and follow advice.” Recruitment arrangements ensured staff had been checked before they worked in people’s homes.

Care workers showed a concern for the people they provided care and support to. People said they were treated with respect, dignity and their privacy was upheld. People’s views were sought and listened to.

People’s health, welfare and independence were maintained and promoted. People told us they could stay in their own home because of the help they received. One person said, “Because they see to my feet and legs I can still get around and go out using my walker.”

There was a current review of office arrangements by the recently appointed manager. Their emphasis was on listening to what people and staff had to say so the service could be improved. Staff said there was always somebody they could call for advice and support.

There were two breaches of regulation. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

22, 23 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service caring?

Is the service effective?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

On the day of our inspection there were 70 people using the service. The summary is based on conversations with 13 people using the service, eight staff supporting them and the acting manager. We looked at records of people's care and quality monitoring.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because care workers were provided in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs and wishes. They were trained, supervised and their work was monitored to ensure they were supporting people in line with their assessed needs. Several people using the service mentioned they were treated with respect and they also felt safe when the carer was with them.

The agency staffing arrangements were found to be robust and the previous concerns around missed visits had been addressed.

People's care was planned with their involvement or the involvement of people who knew them well. This included risks to their health and welfare.

People were safe because the agency had responded to concerns which might indicate people were at risk from abuse.

Is the service caring?

People received a caring service. People who used the service told us "The carers are very good"; "The carers do very well", "A friendly lot" and "The care I receive is excellent." We found that people's individual needs and requests were understood by care workers and the agency office staff who tried to tailor the service to each individual's requirements.

Is the service effective?

People received an effective service because people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People were more confident since the last inspection that care workers would arrive when expected. They told us "They were very reliable and stayed the time they are contracted to stay" and "Very good. Most of the time I get the same carers". We found the provider had taken measures to ensure there was an effective planning system in place to ensure people got their visits.

Is the service responsive?

People received a responsive service through the knowledge and skills of the care workers who received additional training where this was necessary to meet individual's complex needs. Where there were concerns, or a change in an individual's needs, their plan of care was reviewed and expert advice sought.

There were improved arrangements to ensure that care workers would always be available for visits should a planned care worker be unable to attend at short notice.

Is the service well led?

The service was well led. People using the service praised the changes at the agency office which had led to a more effective management. They told us "Both the carers and management listen now", "It is improving because there is a new management in place" and "Things are settling down now there is a change of management."

Care workers expressed confidence in the management and recent changes. They told us 'The office is very friendly and much improved'. The acting manager told us they would soon apply to register with the CQC and that they felt confident they could maintain the improvements at the agency office.

There were many ways in which the quality of the service was being monitored, such as spot checks of care workers work and telephone interviews with people using the service.

20, 27 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We conducted two visits to MiHomecare Okehampton to check whether the agency had complied with the requirement to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced care workers to meet people's needs. We visited three people who used the service, looked at four people's care records, talked to 18 people, three family/representative, eight care workers, two office staff and two representatives of the organisation.

People told us they were extremely happy with the care workers who supported them. Their comments included "The carers are fantastic" and "The girls are good".

People told us about missed visits, times when only one instead of the two required care workers turned up, late visits and missed care. This included medicines not given on time, being left in bed unable to get up despite the risk from pressure damage and missing meals. People told us "I just lie in bed and wait"; "Twice a girl turned up so late it made no difference them coming at all", "Nobody turned up on Saturday morning" and "Without the two care workers here she has to stay in the chair all night".

People using the service and care workers talked about failings in the way the office was managed. One care worker said "Anything I report to the office goes unheard...nothing gets done". One person said "It has been pretty horrendous".

We found that, despite previous staffing shortfalls affecting the service people received the organisation had not monitored the staffing situation, ensured there were enough staff or made sure there was any consistent management overview of the situation.

23, 26 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to 15 people or their representative, five care workers and two office workers.

People liked their current care workers most saying they were satisfied with the care they received. People told us, '75% very good'; 'One carer did not know how to put a sheet on but the others are good', 'Yes, very good' and 'Lovely girls. Yes, very satisfied.' We saw that care workers were trained and their work was supervised. People's care was planned with their involvement and reviewed so that the plan reflected their current needs.

Half of the people were unhappy with the visit timekeeping, which had the potential to put people at risk. We found that there were some missed visits, but the agency did prioritise according to risk when there were staffing shortfalls.

There were systems in place to monitor visit times and people's opinion on the service was sought through questionnaires and visits by an agency care coordinator. Complaints were categorized and investigated. However, these measures had not yet translated into a reliable service with regard to the staffing arrangements. We were told that the new provider organisation was scrutinising the agency performance and we saw there was evidence for this.

People were safeguarded from abuse or the risk of abuse and the agency had robust systems for ensuring any such concerns were passed to the appropriate agencies.