Archived: Mears Care - Hingham

We found people had been consulted and involved in identifying their support needs. We saw signatures on documentation at the care planning stage and also at reviews held, confirming their involvement.

We received comments that told us the service had improved. People using the service said the service had 'improved,' 'got better,' 'much better service.'

At the August inspection we found that people were not protected from potential abuse. At this inspection we found that people using the service were better protected. People were no longer left without their planned visit and staff had received safeguarding training.

Staffing levels had improved and people were receiving the care and support required at the times expected.

Staff who were recently recruited were suitable and capable. They were receiving regular supervision and training was up to date. This would ensure people receiving a service had care and support from staff whom were knowledgeable and competent.

Improvements had been made in the way the agency handled complaints. These were acted upon quickly and appropriately. Records were up to date and auditing processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service people received.

We received many comments that told us the care provided was in need of improvement. Some examples of the comments were, 'The service we get is so much worse.' 'You can't talk to someone who is in and out like a whirlwind.' 'I was sent a carer who could not speak English.' 'I have not been able to attend the community centre for three weeks as the carers have not turned up in time to help me get up and ready.' This told us people were not receiving the care that was appropriate, nor were they treated with respect. However we also received comments saying, '.would not be here without the support of my regular carer,' 'I cry less often now and feel much happier and more supported. I couldn't manage without these carers' and '.'they have my care spot on but I have to keep on calling the office so they get it right and I shouldn't have to keep doing this.' This showed us that effective and safe care was not always provided.

Due to a large number of staff leaving this agency at the same time not all care support to people had been timely or appropriate. This had led to people being missed and their care not provided or late calls being made. This had placed people at risk.

When staff were recruited safe procedures were followed to ensure they were suitable and skilled enough to do the job. However, staff were not always supported to keep their training up to date nor could we be assured they were supervised to an appropriate standard.

Although the provider had a quality monitoring system in place and audits were regularly carried out they were not completed to an appropriate standard. Nor could we be assured that complaints and comments were listened to and acted upon. The agency had not been well led nor had they responded when concerns had arisen.

The agency was aware of the concerns raised and, with new management, was acting on the concerns found.

We found that people were involved and consulted about the care support that was assessed and right for them and that other professionals were involved to ensure they were supported fully with all their care needs.

We saw evidence that showed staff were trained and supervised to ensure they could meet the level of care required and that the quality of the care support provided was checked by management and that action was taken when improvements were identified.