Archived: MiHomecare - Hillingdon

Updated 8 June 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 27 April and was announced.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available.

The inspection was carried out by a single inspector. An expert-by-experience contacted people who used the service and their relatives by telephone. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert-by-experience who supported this inspection had experience of domiciliary care services.

Before the inspection we looked at all the information we held about the provider including notifications of significant events that occurred at the service.

During the inspection we looked at the care records of six people who used the service, three staff files and a range of records relating to the management of the service. We met with the registered manager, the regional manager, the field supervisor, the care coordinator and the administrator.

Following the inspection, we telephoned 10 people who used the service and three relatives to obtain feedback about their experiences of using the service. We also contacted and obtained feedback from five care workers by email. We also obtained feedback from two social care professionals involved in the care of people who used the service.

Updated 8 June 2016

The inspection took place on 27 April 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice because they offer a domiciliary care service and we wanted to make sure someone would be available.

The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 2014 and had not been inspected before.

MiHomecare – Hillingdon is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people who live in their own homes. The majority of people using the service were over the age of 65 years, although some younger adults also received care. At the time of our inspection there were 82 people using the service.

MiHomecare – Hillingdon is part of a larger national organisation, MiHomecare Limited, providing personal care to adults in their own homes. MiHomecare started life as Enara – a company that had been providing home care services since 1996. In October 2012, it was renamed MiHomecare.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Medicines Administration Records (MAR) charts were handwritten by staff and staff were directed not to sign for individual medicines. This meant that people were at risk of not receiving their medicines safely.

The service employed enough staff and contingency plans were in place in case of staff absence. Recruitment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they supported people unsupervised.

The risks to people’s safety and wellbeing had been assessed and there were detailed plans in place for the risks identified. There were procedures for safeguarding adults and the staff were aware of these. Care workers knew how to respond to any medical emergencies or significant changes in a person’s wellbeing.

People were supported by staff who were suitably trained, supervised and appraised.

People had consented to their care and support. The service had policies and procedures in place to assess people’s capacity, in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

People’s health and nutritional needs had been assessed, recorded and were being monitored. These informed care workers about how to support the person safely and in a dignified way.

Feedback from people and relatives was positive about both the care workers and the provider. People and relatives said the care workers were kind, caring and respected their privacy and dignity. Most people received care from regular carers and had developed a trusting relationship.

People and relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support. People’s individual needs had been assessed and recorded in their care plans prior to receiving a service, and were regularly reviewed.

There was a complaints policy in place. People knew how to make a complaint, and felt confident that their concerns would be addressed appropriately.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. The service conducted a telephone monitoring service and carried out quality visits to people’s homes. These provided vital information about the quality of the service provided.

Most people knew who the manager was and knew how to contact them when required.

Staff thought their manager was supportive and approachable.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 which related to the management of medicines. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.