Archived: Mears Care London West

Updated 27 September 2019

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 and an inspection manager. Telephone interviews were undertaken by one 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 and flats. They also provided short term care and support alongside the treatment provided by the health authority to people moving back home after an accident, hospital admission or operation. This type of support is known as reablement and is designed to help people to regain skills and confidence so that they can return to the lifestyle they had previously. The number of people who used the service changed regularly because the agency was one of the main providers used by the local authority. They also provide outreach support for people who live in their own homes but need support to remain independent.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection. This was due to the nature of the service and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 30 July 2019 and ended on 31 July 2019. We visited the office location on both days.

What we did before the inspection:

The provider completed a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We reviewed the previous inspection report and notifications received from the provider.

During the inspection:

We spoke with 11 people and one relative about their experience of the care provided. During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, one visiting officer and one coordinator. We spoke with three care workers for feedback on the service.

We reviewed the care plans and medicine plans for five people. We looked at the recruitment records for four care workers and the training for all staff. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed. We requested feedback from the local authority.

After the inspection:

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found and we spoke with two members of staff.

Updated 27 September 2019

About the service

Mears Care London West is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes within the London Borough of Hillingdon. Most people had their care funded and organised by the local authority. At the time of the inspection there were approximately 144 people receiving support from the agency.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider had a complaints procedure that was offered to all people. However, they did not always follow their own complaint procedure in that complainants did not always receive a full and comprehensive response after their complaints had been fully investigated. The provider’s quality assurance mechanisms had also not identified this shortfall, so this could be rectified.

People using the service and their relatives gave us mixed views about not being told if care workers were running late. Some people's experience was that the service did not communicate effectively with them, while other understood that the service offered a two-hour window around the appointment time.

Despite some concerns regarding lateness, people reported they felt safe with the care workers who supported them. There was a safeguarding policy and clear procedures in place. Care workers were aware of how to raise a safeguarding concern. They knew how to keep people safe and received training in safeguarding adults. Care workers were recruited safely and underwent all the necessary checks. medicines were also managed safety.

There was information available throughout people's support plans which enabled staff to provide person centred care. People and their representatives had been involved in the care planning process.

Risks to people's health and well-being were identified and managed by staff. Each person had a risk assessment and risk management plans that identified, managed and mitigated those risks found.

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.

Staff had developed caring relationships with people, which respected their dignity and privacy and promoted their independence. People's care and support met their needs and reflected their personal preferences. People were supported to eat their meals according to their preferences.

The provider worked in partnership with key organisations such as healthcare professionals to plan and deliver an effective service for the people who were receiving care.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 27 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified a breach in relation to the handling of complaints. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.