• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: MiHomecare - Poole

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

54 Parkstone Road, Poole, Dorset, BH15 2PG (01202) 668864

Provided and run by:
MiHomecare Limited

All Inspections

15,16,20 & 22 July 2015

During a routine inspection

The first part of this comprehensive inspection was unannounced and took place on 15 July 2015. Three further days of inspection took place by appointment on 16, 20 and 22 July 2015.

MiHomecare – Poole is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch areas.

The service has not had a registered manager since July 2014. 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.

An acting manager had been in charge of MiHomecare – Poole following the resignation of the registered manager in July 2014. This person did not register with CQC and left the company in March 2015. A new manager had been appointed and was undertaking their induction with MiHomecare during this inspection.

At our last inspection in September 2014 we found breaches in the regulations relating to the care and welfare of people who use the service, safeguarding people from abuse, management of medicines, the recruitment, training and support of staff and the provision of adequate numbers of staff. This inspection was carried out to check that the provider had taken action to put things right.

At this inspection we found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Regulations 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Some of these breaches were repeated because the service had failed to take proper action after the last inspection. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People’s medicines were not managed safely. People’s needs regarding the help they needed to take their medicines or apply prescribed creams had not been properly assessed and planned for and there were no instructions for staff to follow. This meant that people were at risk of not receiving the correct medicine, in the correct quantity, at the correct time.

Systems to manage risk and ensure people were cared for in a safe way were ineffective. Risk assessments were not always undertaken or regularly reviewed when they had been done. Some risk assessments identified hazards and concerns but no action had been recorded to show that risks to people had been reduced or managed. This meant that people’s safety and well-being was not always protected.

There were not enough staff employed to meet people’s needs. People did not receive calls at the times they needed and visits were often cut short. Suitable steps had not been taken to ensure that staff were suitably trained and supervised. This meant that people were not always cared for by staff who had been supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

People did not always receive the care they required. Care planning systems were not robust. Some assessments had not recognised specific care needs and no care plans had been created. Some people’s needs had changed and care plans had not been reviewed and amended. This meant that care workers were providing care and meeting needs that had not been fully assessed and planned for.

Management arrangements and systems at the agency did not ensure that the service was well-led. Recruitment systems were not always fully implemented to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Quality monitoring systems were not used effectively, surveys were not responded to and people were not listened to when they made complaints. Record keeping was poor, as records were out of date and contained errors and omissions.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service  is therefore in  ‘Special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

29 September and 7, 8, 13 October 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection which was undertaken by one inspector over four days. The inspection was carried out to check that the agency had taken action in one area following our inspection in October 2013. Time was spent speaking with people who use the service, relatives, staff, and the acting manager. We also spent time looking at various records.

The name of a registered manager who no longer works at the agency appears on this report. At the time of our inspection they had resigned but had not applied to cancel their registration. There was an acting manager in post who was in charge of the day to day running of the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed and the records we looked at.

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

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People who used the service were not protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. They had also not responded appropriately to incidents of possible abuse.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines or to train and assess the competency of the staff who handled and administered medication.

We found that the provider had not taken action to ensure that there were effective recruitment procedures in place. The provider had not used information gathered from recruitment checks to determine whether staff members were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

There were not sufficient numbers of staff available to ensure that people are safe and have their health and welfare needs met.

Is the service effective?

The provider had not taken steps to ensure that staff were suitably trained and supervised. This meant that people were not always cared for by staff who had been supported to deliver care and treatment safely.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us that the care workers that visited them were kind and caring. They said that their privacy was respected and care workers encouraged them to remain involved in their care and maintain their independence as much as possible.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service was not ensuring that people's care plans were up to date and did not reflect how people wanted to receive their care. People told us that they did not receive care at the times they had requested to meet their individual needs and preferences.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager had left their employment with the agency two months prior to the inspection. There was an acting manager who was in charge of the day to day running of the service. We were told that the acting manager had been in post since the previous registered manager had left their post. The acting manager had not applied to CQC to become the registered manager for this service.

2, 4, 7 October 2013

During a routine inspection

MiHomecare supported approximately 60 people in Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch. We visited four people and two relatives in their homes. We spoke with five people, one relative and three staff by telephone. We visited the agency office and spoke with the manager.

Comments from people and relatives we met and spoke with about the agency included; 'I'm well looked after', 'They are doing a reasonable job' and 'I get on with all the care workers', 'They slip up occasionally and I don't get a regular carer and shifting times, they don't always let me know' and 'They are always very pleasant I find them perfect'.

People did not consistently experience care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. This was because some people were not informed of changes to their visits times or kept informed if their visits were running late.

Overall, people were protected from risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

Overall, there was a system in place to regularly check and monitor the quality of the service people received. There were systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.