Archived: Mears Care - Workington

This inspection took place on 20, 23 & 27 February 2018. At the last inspection 15 July 2016 the service was rated Good overall. However, we made recommendations about staff supervision and training. On this inspection February 2018 we found these areas had now been addressed. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good.

We found that the service had been through a recent period of change with a number of new systems and developments that were still being embedded into the service. There had been staff changes and some staff shortages that had affected the delivery of the service. We found that the registered manager and provider were making good progress and had clear action plans to address these issues.

People told us the service was improving and becoming more reliable and care was provided from a mostly consistent group of staff. They told us staff were friendly, and caring and people said their privacy and dignity were respected and promoted by the care staff.

People felt safe when receiving care and support from staff. Staff knew how to recognise and report potential safeguarding issues and they received appropriate training in this area. Risk assessments were in place to protect people from risks but also enabled them to safely carry on their day to day lives.

People were included in planning and agreeing to the care they received. People could ask for changes to their planned care and the service agreed to these where possible.

The service had experienced some staffing shortages from September to December 2017. After a recent recruitment drive staffing levels were now sufficient to ensure people received standards of care that enhanced their welfare, safety and day to day living.

The care staff were well trained and supported to be able to provide the care people needed. Specialist training was given to staff to meet people’s individual support needs.

Staff received comprehensive induction when they first started work at the service and received on-going supervision and an annual appraisal of their performance.

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

The service had developed good links with healthcare and social care professionals to support people with their health and well-being. Medicines were handled safely and people received support with their medicines as they needed.

The registered manager set high standards and monitored the quality of the service to check these standards were maintained. Where issues had been highlighted by people we saw the registered manager and provider had taken action to address these. A new IT system for monitoring care visits had begun to see improvements in how the service was run; with punctuality improving and missed calls being prevented.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We found that staff respected people's right to choose and ensured that people who lacked capacity were supported in their decision making. Care was delivered as per the care plan though some people told us that the staff often did additional tasks such as vacuuming if asked. Staff were well supported by the manager and deputy but supervisions and appraisals needed to be kept up to date though there was a plan in place to ensure that this would happen. We noted that staffing levels were low due to short term sickness and absence, however recruitment had taken place. Complaints were dealt with quickly and effectively as outlined in the services complaints policy.

We had evidence to show that people received good levels of care and support and that they were protected from harm and abuse.

We also saw that the company had good quality monitoring systems and that they provided staff with suitable training.

We had evidence to show that not all staff took up the training and that staff had not been receiving formal supervision.