Archived: Mears Care - Kirklees

As part of our inspection we contacted 11 people who used the service or their relatives. We spoke with two people who used the service and with nine relatives to obtain their views of the support provided.

We also visited the agency office and spoke with seven members of staff and the registered manager. In addition we looked at a selection of records.

We considered all the evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service and relatives told us they felt safe when the care workers were in their home and that their belongings and furniture were looked after well. People said, “very nice [staff], they look after me I’ve no complaints,” “they [staff] get all care tasks done and arrive on time, I’ve no concerns” and “we’ve been satisfied, this is not a problematic service.”

We found risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant that people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their lives.

The service had completed enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, formerly known as Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks for all staff working at the agency. This helped to protect people who were receiving a service.

Is the service effective?

Most people spoken with said they preferred to have regular care workers that they could get to know and who would know what care they needed. Most people said they had regular care workers. People told us, “I don’t always get the same staff every week but generally the same ones,” “yes, my regulars [staff] look after me” and “I have two regular carers. Obviously when they’re on holiday someone else comes, but it’s no problem with people that step in they [staff] seem to handover duties very well.”

There were mixed views from relatives we spoke with. Positive views from relatives were that the regular care workers were really good, supported their loved ones and had a good relationship with them. One relative said, “I’m more than happy with the service and [family member’s] care, we couldn’t ask for a better provider. I hope their contract continues. It’s nice for continuity we have the same two carers most weeks.”

Two relatives we spoke with said, “communication is the thing that is not as good as it could be, I don’t know why, it could be improved. They missed a visit and communication wasn’t as good as it could be, we did raise that with them [agency] and they apologised” and “they are late or sometimes they are a bit early. Last week the visit was an hour late and nobody let us know.”

People’s health and care needs were assessed on a regular basis. We saw people who used the service and their relatives had been involved in writing plans of care and these were reviewed and updated regularly.

We found staff were provided with an induction which lasted four days. The induction covered many areas including all mandatory training and also additional specialised training in such topics as dementia and medication administration.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service told us most care workers were kind, patient, cheerful, polite and caring, especially their regular carers. Positive comments included, “my care worker helps with personal care and enables me to be as independent as possible,” “they’re good young ladies, very, very good. Yes, [regulars] look after me and do everything they need to” and “yes they [care workers] stay their allocated times and do everything, I’m more than happy with them.”

Relatives told us, “my family member has regular care workers and she likes them, they do everything, very good. I complained about a missed visit and they said sorry,” “they do a brilliant job and have a very good rapport with my father, they know his quirks which helps, they have good banter with him and obviously they do the job as well. No trouble at all” and “friendly [care workers], I can’t knock them.”

Is the service responsive?

Relatives said they would contact the office if they had a concern or a complaint. They all knew how to contact the office. Some relatives said they had a good relationship with office staff and managers but others said communication with office staff was not as good as it could be. One relative said, “Mears have got a bad reputation, it’s not the carers it’s just the office. Not good communication [from the office]. It’s difficult to get hold of [staff at the office] and they don’t phone back. They altered the visit times without consulting with relatives.”

One relative told us they had received a letter recently saying the care workers would be coming at 6.30pm as their regular care worker was on holiday. The relative said this was far too early and rang the office. No one rang them back. The relative said carers had also told the office staff but they didn’t do anything.

Is the service well-led?

The agency had recently extended to provide a service for people in a larger geographical area. This had caused some disruption for staff and meant that a number of staff had left. As a result of this people who used the service in one particular area felt the care provided by the agency had been disrupted and had resulted in some people having missed and late visits.

The registered manager gave us assurances that these concerns had been dealt with and that newly employed office staff were improving the service to people that had been affected by the changes.

Satisfaction surveys and review meetings had been used to enable people to share their views on the service provided. This helped the provider to assess if people were receiving the care and support they needed. We found evidence to confirm people had been listened to and changes made to improve their care and support package.

Mears Kirklees in November 2013 merged with three other locations and is now the main office for the geographical areas of Kirklees, Leeds, Barnsley, and Wakefield.

We found people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care and treatment was also planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

We found people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We found appropriate arrangements were in place for obtaining, recording and handling of medicines.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We found records, including medical records, were accurate and fit for purpose. Records were stored securely and could be located promptly when needed.

People's comments included,” They always treat me well, they’re marvellous, they really are all fantastic.” “They always turn up, even in bad weather.”

We found evidence which showed the service had managed complaints or concerns it received from people effectively. We also noted that the service had made changes in response to feed-back it had received from people.

The service took a pro-active approach to ensure that Infection Control policies and procedures were being followed by staff.

Staff had the necessary skills and training required to deliver the care and support people needed.