Archived: Mears Care - St Neots

The service was effectively planned and well managed with clear leadership and overview of the service. The registered manager was knowledgeable and highly organised. The support provided to people was seamless because there was a suitably qualified and experienced senior team who could deputise in the registered manager absence and all had clearly defined and well understood roles. Communication was robust which helped ensure the needs of people using the service were known and any risks or changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and addressed.

The service had very robust systems in place to monitor compliance and help ensure the service was delivered in line with the organisational business plan and the local authority contract, taking into account any relevant legislation and best practice. The service scored highly in its audits but were not complacent. It embraced new ideas and technology whilst also investing heavily in their work force to be the best they could be. It acted on feedback and had a robust quality assurance system which put people at the heart of everything it did. It was open and transparent as demonstrated by its response to safeguarding concerns and complaints which were dealt with effectively.

Service delivery was in line with the service contract. Timings of calls were monitored by an electronic system which ensured the safety of staff and meant people had their calls as planned. Staff had regular rounds which helped ensure continuity and people told us they got to know their carers and were able to rely on them and trust them.

Care spoke spoken with demonstrated a caring, flexible attitude and real commitment to ensuring people came first. Staff said they were never rushed and took pride in their work. There were robust recruitment processes in place which helped ensure staff with the right values and skills were employed. Staff were supported through robust training, observations of practice, reflective supervisions and annual appraisal. These systems helped to support staff develop professionally. All new staff completed the care certificate a nationally recognised induction and staff were actively encouraged to take additional studies. Senior staff spoken with had been promoted internally through the organisation and were given the stepping stones to develop. This helped the service to attract and retain staff which benefited people using the service. Most staff we spoke with were experienced with many years’ service.

The service was safely provided because there were systems and processes in place to ensure people received the support they needed in a timely, consistent way and any risks have been identified and planned for. Staff had sufficient knowledge to help them carry out the regulated activity safely and in line with people’s wishes and consent. The service embraced equality and diversity and helped ensure that the service reflected the needs of people using the service. The service was regularly discussed with people to help ensure that they had no concerns or if they had ideas about how the service could be improved upon. This was acted upon and the service was forward thinking and maintained high standards in everything they did whilst continuously trying to improve. The service had maintained it good rating and was held in high regard.

Rating at last inspection: Good, (Report published 18 August 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained Good.

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

Our last inspection took place on 25 November 2013 when we found the provider was meeting all the regulations we looked at.

This unannounced inspection took place on 2, 3, 8 and 10 June 2016. There were 128 people receiving care at that time in Cambridgeshire.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they 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.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s safety was effectively managed. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and of how to protect people from harm.

Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out comprehensive and satisfactory pre-employment checks. People experienced a good quality of life because staff were well trained which gave them the skills and knowledge to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff were well supported by their managers. There were enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

People received their prescribed medicines appropriately. People’s health, care and nutritional needs were effectively met.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. We found that there were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making and applications had been made to the authorising agencies for people who needed these safeguards. Staff respected people choices and staff were aware of the key legal requirements of the MCA and DoLS. People’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Where people did not have the mental capacity to make decisions, they had been supported in the decision making process.

People received care and support from staff who were passionate about providing good quality care. They were kind, caring, respectful and friendly. There was a strong emphasis on person centred care. Staff actively encouraged and promoted people’s independence. They were proactive and looked for innovative ways of delivering people’s care that focused on enabling people to maintain their independence.

Staff showed consideration of people’s views. People and their relatives had ample opportunities and were encouraged to comment on the service provided. Staff involved people, and those important to them, in planning and delivering the service, ensuring the service provided was based on each person’s needs and wishes. People were fully involved in every day decisions about their care.

Care records were detailed and provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent and individualised care to each person. Changes to people’s care were kept under review to ensure the change was effective. There were opportunities for people to pursue their interests and maintain community links.

The experienced registered manager was supported by a highly motivated staff team. The service was very well run and staff including the registered manager were approachable and supportive. Staff understood fully what was expected of them. They understood and worked to the provider’s values, always placing people at the centre of the service.

The service had a positive culture of continuous improvement. People and their relatives were encouraged to provide frequent feedback on the service both formally and informally. People’s views were listened to and acted on. Concerns were thoroughly investigated plans actions were taken to bring about improvement in the service. The service had an effective quality assurance system. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous and sustained improvement.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's care and support needs and we observed staff speaking with people in an attentive and polite way.

Care plans we looked at were person centred and provided staff with guidance about how to meet people's care and support needs. Regular reviews were undertaken and care plans were updated when there were any changes to people's needs.

Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that the necessary checks were carried out prior to staff starting work. Staff told us that they received good training and support that enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. Staffs' competency to do their job was checked regularly as part of a quality assurance system.

There were systems in place to seek people's feedback about the quality of the service they received. People we spoke with told us that they felt confident that they could raise any concerns they had with the agency and that action would be taken to address these.

Thorough assessments of people's needs were carried out prior to them receiving a service from the agency. The assessment formed the basis of the care plan which provided clear guidance to staff about how to meet people's needs. Regular reviews were held to ensure that the care plans were updated when there were any changes to people's needs. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place which people were informed about.

Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that the necessary checks were carried out on staff prior to them starting work. Staff told us that they received good training and support that enabled them to carry out their roles effectively.