• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Care m U m

Overall: Good

16 Avenue Terrace, York, North Yorkshire, YO30 6AX

Provided and run by:
Mrs Anna Marie Wood

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 15 May 2021

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was completed by one inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was announced. We gave a short period notice of the inspection because we needed to be sure that the provider or manager would be available to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 12 April 2021 and ended on 4 May 2021. We visited the office location on 28 April 2021.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service and sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with nine relatives and contacted two people about their experience of the care provided. We had contacted several care staff and left messages for them to email us with a suitable time and date to speak with them. We managed to speak with the responsible individual/manager, administrative assistant/carer and a further two care staff.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff’s files in relation to recruitment, induction and training. Many staff had not worked with the service for more than six months, the provider was able to send an example of an older supervision they had completed for us to review. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were also reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to review information from the inspection and to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.

Overall inspection


Updated 15 May 2021

About the service

Care m U m is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. The service supports older people who may also be living with mental health needs, a physical disability, dementia, learning disabilities and/or autism. The service was supporting 32 people at the time of our inspection.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

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

Some people’s relatives and some social care professionals had raised concerns about call times not always been as contracted. We found a small number of calls outside the acceptable timeframe’s allowed. However, there were valid reasons for this such as unforeseen emergencies.

Some minor improvements were needed in the way COVID-19 risk assessments were recorded. Measures were in place to minimise the risk of transmission and all staff had received appropriate training.

Recording of medicines required some minor improvements to be made. These were addressed as part of the inspection. We found no evidence people had been harmed as a result of these recording issues.

Overall the provider’s audits had effectively monitored and addressed any issues with the quality and safety of the service. We identified a couple of minor areas that could be improved, which the manager took action to address.

Staff received training to enable them to support people’s needs. We identified some staff found it difficult to retain the information from online training. This was discussed with the manager. Further training had been sourced during the inspection and this was to commence alongside regular competency checks and supervisions to reinforce staff knowledge and support.

People’s relatives felt their loved ones were safely cared for. The provider had systems in place to protect people from harm and abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people and knew who to report concerns to.

The provider had completed environmental risk assessments with guidance for staff to mitigate known risks to people. Risks associated to people’s health conditions required additional work, which the provider took action to address during the inspection. Accident and incidents had been recorded and actions taken to prevent them from reoccurring.

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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff supported people to maintain healthy diets and regular hydration, whilst considering people’s own choices. Staff monitored people for any changes and reported these to ensure the right support was sourced.

Care plans were detailed and person-centred. These included people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. These had been written beautifully with an emphasis on each individual’s personality, personal needs, maintaining independence, choices and human rights. End of life care was discussed during assessments and people’s preferences recorded.

A complaints procedure was in place and the provider adhered to this. People’s relatives felt able to raise concerns and the majority were confident these would be dealt with appropriately. Staff knew how and where to raise their concerns and were confident these would be dealt with in a confidential manner.

Relatives told us that staff were kind and caring towards people. Staff were knowledgeable about how to support people’s dignity and respect the way they chose to live their lives.

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

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 12 August 2019 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on when the service was registered.