We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mobile Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Mobile Care, you can give feedback on this service.
This service is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our visit 49 people were being supported by Mobile Care.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they were supported by staff who knew and consistently met their needs. Staffing levels were continuously reviewed to ensure there were enough staff to provide a flexible and responsive care. People told us the carers were reliable however we did receive mixed comments about the punctuality of calls on occasions. We have made a recommendation about this.
Procedures were in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. We saw the management team had cooperated and worked in partnership with the local authority when safeguarding concerns had been brought to their attention. People told us they felt safe with the support they received from the staff.
People’s care and support had been planned proactively and in partnership with them. People felt consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
The service worked in partnership with healthcare professionals and families to ensure people’s health care needs were met. Care plan information focused on a person-centred method of supporting people. Also, information contained what support was required.
People supported by the service and their relatives consistently told us the management and staff who supported them were polite, reliable, caring and professional in their approach to their work.
People and relatives said individuals using Mobile Care experienced positive outcomes. We reviewed compliments received by the service and saw people and family members had repeatedly praised the service for the improvements made to people’s lives.
The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people and their family when they commenced using the service. The management team worked proactively to ensure individual concerns were identified and acted upon before they became a complaint.
The registered provider used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. This enabled the service to be monitored and improve areas that were identified through their quality monitoring processes.
More information is in the detailed findings below.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last comprehensive inspection the service was rated overall as Good.
Why we inspected:
This inspection was a scheduled comprehensive inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
The next scheduled inspection will be in keeping with the overall rating. We will continue to monitor information we receive from and about the service. We may inspect sooner if we receive concerning information about the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website www.cqc,org.uk
We undertook this focused inspection to confirm that the provider had now addressed these concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to that requirement.
Mobile Care is located in Hereford, Herefordshire. It is domiciliary care agency which provides support to people in their own homes. It supports people with physical disabilities, older people, people with mental health conditions and people who are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection, there were 34 people using the service.
There was a registered manager at this service, who was also the registered provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers 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's views were sought about the care they received, and these were acted upon. There were systems in place to routinely monitor the quality of care provided.
People were positive about the service they received and the way in which it was run.
The provider had notified the Care Quality Commission of safeguarding concerns or accidents and injuries sustained by people they support, as required.
Staff felt supported in their roles, but felt they would benefit from regular team meetings.
We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intention to undertake an inspection. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people in their homes and or the family home; we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office.
The provider registered this service with us to provide personal care and support for people with a range of varying needs including dementia, who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 34 people received support with personal care.
There was a registered manager for this service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers 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 and their relatives said they were well supported by the staff and the management team. They told us staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People were supported to eat and drink well when identified as part of their care planning.. Relatives told us they were involved in the support for their family member. People and their relatives told us staff would access health professionals when they were needed.
Staff we spoke with recognised the different types of abuse. There were systems in place to guide staff in reporting any concerns. Staff were able to explain how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to peoples’ needs. People were supported to receive their medicines by staff that were trained and knowledgeable about the risks associated with them. Staff knew people well, and took people’s preferences into account and respected them. The management team were adaptable to changes in peoples’ needs and communicated changes to staff effectively.
Staff had up to date training to support people. Staff were knowledgeable about ensuring people gave their consent to the support they received. They worked within the confines of the law which meant they did not treat people unlawfully. There were no applications to the court of protection to deprive people of their liberty.
People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints and the management team had arrangements in place to ensure people were listened to and action taken if required. We saw that complaints were actioned and the outcomes agreed.
The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. However these systems were not consistently completed, therefore the quality of the service was not always effectively monitored. The management team had not sent notifications to the care quality commission relating to safe guarding concerns. These notifications are a legal requirement for registered services. People and staff told us that the service was well managed, and the management team were approachable and would take action when needed. The culture of the service was open and inclusive; the deputy manager told us that it was important that people using the service felt listened to.