Archived: Mayfair Homecare - Merton

Mayfair Homecare - Merton is a domiciliary care provider. At the time of this inspection 47 people were receiving care and support from the service. The service supports older people, some of whom are living with dementia, in their own houses and flats in the community.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ Most people were happy with the care they received and said it met their needs. They said they had support from a consistent group of care staff who knew them.

¿ People said they felt safe with staff. There were systems and processes in place to manage medicines safely and protect people from the risk of harm and abuse.

¿ People received support from trained and supervised staff who had the right skills and knowledge.

¿ People and their relatives said staff were polite, kind and caring towards them. Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy. They listened to people and supported their independence where possible.

¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

¿ Support plans were up to date and addressed people’s needs and individual preferences.

¿ People, their relatives and staff said they could approach the registered manager if they had any issues or concerns. There was a procedure in place which explained how people could raise concerns or complaints.

¿ The organisation operated an effective quality assurance system which included the completion of spot checks and audits. People were regularly asked for feedback on their experience of the service through spot checks, reviews, surveys and telephone calls.

Rating at last inspection:

At our last inspection, the service was rated Good. The report was published on 5 August 2016.

Why we inspected:

This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

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

Sevacare – Merton is a domiciliary care agency that provides people with personal care and support in their homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing care and support to 49 people. People who used the service were mostly older adults and had a wide range of health care needs and conditions. Some people were living with dementia. The majority of people receiving support were funded by their local authority but a few people also pay privately.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe with the support provided by the service. Staff were supported to take appropriate action to ensure people were protected if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or being harmed by discriminatory behaviour or practices. Risk of injury or harm posed to people by their specific healthcare needs and home environment had been assessed. Plans were put in place which instructed staff on how to minimise identified risks to keep people safe.

People were supported by staff that were suitable and fit to work for the service. Employment and criminal records checks were carried out on all staff before they started work. People did not have major concerns about staff turning up late or missing a scheduled visit. This indicated there were sufficient numbers of staff available to support people. Staffing levels were continuously monitored by senior staff to ensure people experienced consistency and continuity in their care and that their needs could be met at all times.

Staff received training to meet people’s needs. Training was in areas and topics relevant to their work. Senior staff monitored training to ensure staff skills and knowledge were kept up to date. Staff received regular supervision so that they were appropriately supported to care for people. They felt well supported by managers who they said were approachable and listened.

People were involved in discussions about their care and support needs. Each person had a homecare support plan which set out for staff, their needs and preferences for how they wished to be cared for and supported. People said staff met their needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how people’s needs should be met. Senior staff reviewed people’s care and support needs regularly to ensure staff had up to date information about these.

People were supported by staff to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff helped people to take their prescribed medicines when they needed these. They monitored people’s general health and wellbeing and where they had any issues or concerns about this they took appropriate action so that attention could be sought promptly from the relevant healthcare professionals. Where the service was responsible for this, people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.

The majority of people were satisfied with the care and support they received. People knew how to make a complaint if needed. People said staff were kind, caring and respectful. People’s right to privacy and to be treated with dignity was maintained by staff, particularly when receiving personal care. People were encouraged to do as much as they could and wanted to do for themselves to retain control and independence.

Staff sought the views and experiences of people about the quality of care and support provided and how this could be improved. They used this information along with other checks to assess and review the quality of service people experienced. Where there were any shortfalls or gaps identified through these checks senior staff took action to address these.

People and staff were positive about the management of the service. There were clear reporting lines within the service so that there was responsibility and accountability at all levels. The provider used learning to make changes and improvements to the service, for example from CQC inspections of the provider’s other locations.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff received training in the MCA so they were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Act. Records showed people’s capacity to make decisions about aspects of their care was considered when planning their support. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions there was involvement of their relatives or representatives and relevant care professionals to make these decisions in people’s best interests.

Following that inspection we asked the provider to take action to achieve compliance with the appropriate regulation. The provider sent us an action plan on 15 October 2014 setting out the steps they had taken to do this. During this visit we checked these actions had been completed.

This visit was carried out by a single inspector who helped answer one of our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on what we saw from looking at records and from speaking with the provider. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found at this visit the provider had taken appropriate steps to ensure staff had access to up to date and accurate information about people's care and support needs. Senior staff had undertaken reviews of people's care needs to ensure support workers were providing people with the appropriate care and support. Where there were changes to people's support needs, people's records were updated promptly by senior staff.

The registered manager carried out weekly checks of people's records to ensure these were being maintained and updated promptly by staff.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on looking at records and from speaking with eight people using the service and the relatives of two others. We also spoke with the care services area manager and the registered manager.

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

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with felt safe receiving care and support from the service. People said, 'I feel very safe in my home and with the carers.', 'The staff are lovely, I feel quite safe with them' and 'We feel very safe at home with the carers.'

The service had assessed potential risks to people's safety, health and welfare in their homes. There was appropriate guidance for staff on how to manage these risks to keep people safe from harm when they received care and support. However this information was not always accurate or up to date. This put people at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care as staff did not have access to up to date information about people's care and support needs. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in maintaining accurate records, which are fit for purpose.

Staff received appropriate information and training on how to protect people from the risk of abuse, harm or neglect.

Is the service effective?

People using the service and their relatives were involved in planning and developing their care and support. Their choices and preferences for how this was provided was used to develop their plan of care.

Staff received regular and appropriate training to ensure they were able to meet the specific needs of people using the service.

Is the service caring?

People spoke positively about the staff that cared for them. People said, 'I receive wonderful help', 'The staff are lovely. They ask what I need and I tell them what is necessary ' and 'They make sure everything is done for and always make sure I'm comfortable before they leave.'

Is the service responsive?

People told us they were comfortable raising any issues and concerns with the registered manager who dealt with these quickly. People said, 'They do their best for you and will try very hard to get things right', 'They act quickly when you need them to. I feel they are quite responsive 'and 'They are willing to be flexible. I spoke to someone just yesterday to see if the time of the morning call could be changed.'

The service had responded to peoples' concerns about late and missed visits and had made some improvements to reduce the incidences of these.

Is the service well-led?

The views and experiences of people using the service and their relatives were sought by the service. People said the registered manager was approachable and always willing to listen to them.

Regular checks were carried out by the provider and registered manager to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Where improvements were needed, staff took appropriate action to make these.

The service shared learning from incidents with staff and took appropriate action to reduce the risk of these reoccurring.