You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We have not inspected this service yet

Inspection summaries and ratings from previous provider


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The inspection took place on 15 and 20 March 2018 and was announced. The previous inspection took place on 31 October and 2 November 2016 and we had rated the service as requires improvement. At this inspection we found a good quality service that had delivered on assurances made to improve the safety and well led sections in the last report.

Ann Mason Care is a domiciliary care agency, which provides personal care and support to people in their homes. People receive a range of different support in their own homes, from daily visits, to live-in care. At the time of inspection there were 51 people receiving a service. The locations covered for daily visits included south Suffolk and North Essex. Including but not limited to Maningtree, Colchester central, Stoke by Nayland, Dedham and East Bergholt. The live in care was provided to people mainly in Suffolk and Essex, but also other nearby counties including Wiltshire.

There was a clear management structure in place. As a registered person, the provider has legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and a computer system was able to monitor and run reports to ensure that systems ran smoothly. People’s views were sought and acted upon. Staff felt supported and the provider promoted an open culture which welcomed constructive criticism. Feedback about this service from people and staff was highly positive. Both parties felt supported by an organisation that promoted good values of care.

People were supported by staff to stay safe in their homes. Recruitment was robust and safe. Staff assisted people to take their medicines as prescribed. Checks helped ensure people were receiving the medicines they needed. Risk assessments ensured staff were aware of how to support people to remain safe in their homes. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and to manage risk safely.

Staff were well supported and spoke highly of the service and the manager. Training ensured staff developed the necessary skills meet people’s specific needs. People were given choices about the care they received. Where people did not have capacity there was understanding of how to make decisions which were in their best interest. People were supported to consume food and drink of their choice. Staff worked well with health care professionals to help people to maintain good health.

Staff knew people well and developed positive relationships with them and their families. Staff treated people with respect and dignity. Care plans were in place which outlined people’s needs and there were systems to ensure people’s needs were reviewed as required. People received a detailed response when they made a complaint and their concerns were dealt with effectively.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was safe.

People had detailed care plans, which included an assessment of risk. These contained sufficient detail to inform staff of risk factors and action they should take.

People were supported by trained staff who knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

There were enough staff to cover calls and ensure people received a reliable service. Safe recruitment systems were in place.

People's medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and supervision to carry out their roles.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and put this into practice.

Staff protected people from the risk of poor nutrition and dehydration.

People had their health needs met and were referred to healthcare professionals promptly when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well.

People were involved in all aspects of their care and in their care plans.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who communicated well.

People were encouraged to express their views and to make choices.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Support was flexible and responded to individual needs.

Regularly reviewed care plans provided detailed information to staff on people's care needs and how they wished to be supported.

The manager logged complaints and responded to them in a personalised way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 May 2018

The service was well led.

The provider had quality monitoring processes to promote the safety and quality of the service.

People who used the service and their relatives were asked for their views to develop the service further.

There was an open, positive and supportive culture at the service and the vision and values of promoting independence were understood and put into practice.

Staff felt well supported.