Background to this inspection
Updated
10 September 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 carried out by one inspector, a specialist advisor 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, flats and specialist housing. This service can also provide care and support to people living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.
The service did not have a manager registered with CQC. This means that the provider was legally responsible for how the service was run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of inspection, we had received an application for a person to register as the manager, and it was being processed by our registration team.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.
Inspection activity started on 13 August 2021 and ended on 01 September 2021. We visited the office location on 24 August 2021.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we held and had received about the service since the initial registration. We sought feedback from the local authority, safeguarding team and other professionals who worked with the service. We checked information held by Companies House and the Information Commissioner’s Office. We checked for any online reviews and relevant social media, and we looked at the content of the provider’s website. We asked the nominated individual to send some documents in advance of visiting the service’s office. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
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 two people and four relatives about their experience of the care and support. We spoke with the nominated individual about their oversight of the service. We spoke with the nominated individual and manager. We also spoke with two locality managers, a regional manager and the business development manager. We wrote to seven care workers. We received written feedback from two social workers and two local authority commissioning teams. We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and medicines administration records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We requested and received quality assurance and other governance records.
Updated
10 September 2021
About the service
MAK Community Care is both a domiciliary care and supported living service providing personal care to people in their own homes, including younger adults with a mental health condition, learning disability or autistic people. Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection visit the service supported two people with personal care. People who received personal care lived in the Preston and Lincoln areas, although the office operates from Wokingham. The provider has applied to us to add another location in the north of England.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
There were audits completed to check the safety and quality of the service. However, there was no log of risks or actions taken to address them. Some documentation required review, such as those related to management meetings, outcomes and actions to be taken forward. Staff meetings were held at regular intervals and surveys were used to gather feedback. The manager was experienced and understood the principles of supported living. Locality managers at Lincoln and Preston were proactive, knowledgeable and engaged.
People were protected from abuse and neglect. Risk assessments were satisfactory. There were sufficient staff deployed to safely meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks were satisfactory and ensured only properly vetted staff worked with people. People were protected from the risk of infections.
People's likes, dislikes and preferences were considered. Staff induction, training, supervisions and performance appraisals were completed. There were good links with community health and social care workers. Consent is obtained and recorded; the provider needed to ensure that attorneys and deputies were clearly recorded in the care documentation.
The staff were caring. There was positive feedback from people, families, commissioners and case managers. People were involved in their care planning and reviews. People's independence was encouraged and fostered.
Care documentation was person-centred. The service and staff understood and complied with the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. There was evidence that people had access to an active social life. There was a satisfactory complaints system in place.
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.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.
The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. The model of care was satisfactory because it ensured that people could live their lives how they chose and as an individual member of society. People had choice and control in their life. The care was person-centred and promoted people’s dignity, privacy and human rights. The positive workplace culture amongst staff ensured that people received good care. The service was open and honest with people, families and social care professionals.
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 13 December 2019 and this is the first inspection.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the date of initial registration.
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.