Archived: Mears Care Mansfield

Updated 28 July 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 27 June 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service, which included notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted Local Authority commissioners of adult social care services and Healthwatch and asked them for their views of the service provided.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

The inspection team consisted of an inspector and assistant inspector and two Experts by Experiences. 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 assistant inspector and the Experts by Experience carried out telephone interviews with people prior to the office-based inspection. They spoke with 38 people who used the service and seven relatives. The inspector visited the office location to see the registered manager, office staff and to speak with care staff.

The inspection was informed by feedback from the telephone interviews as well as questionnaires completed by a number of people using the service, relatives, staff and community professionals. We sent 50 questionnaires to people who used the service and their relatives. We received 20 responses. We sent 122 questionnaires to staff and received 22 responses and we sent four questionnaires to community professionals and we received one response.

During the inspection, we spoke with four members of the care staff, the registered manager and office based staff.

We looked at records relating to six people who used the service as well as three staff recruitment records. We looked at other information related to the running of and the quality of the service. This included quality assurance audits, training information for care staff, staff duty rotas, meeting minutes and arrangements for managing complaints.

The registered manager sent us copies of various policies and procedures and training documentation after the inspection as requested.

Updated 28 July 2018

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 27 June 2018. Mears Care Mansfield is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It currently provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using Mears Care Mansfield receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

At the time of the inspection, 247 people received some element of support with their personal care. This is the service’s second inspection under its current registration. At the previous inspection on 23 June 2017 the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. An action plan was submitted which stated how the service would become compliant. At this inspection, they improved the overall rating to ‘Good’, however the question, ‘Is the service safe?’ remains at ‘Requires Improvement’.

Improvements had been made to the punctuality of the staff; however, people still felt staff arrival times could be improved further. Medicines were managed safely and staff recording errors were monitored and acted on, however the number of recording errors remained high. Improvements had been made to the way the risks associated with people’s care had been assessed and acted on. People told us staff made them feel safe when staff supported them. Robust staff recruitment processes were in place. Staff understood how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. The provider had processes in place to investigate accidents and incidents and to learn from mistakes.

People’s care was provided in line with current legislation and best practice guidelines. People felt staff understood how to support them. Records showed the number of staff with training that was out of date had significantly reduced and courses were booked where needed. Staff now received professional development and supervision. People’s nutritional needs were met. Other health and social care agencies were involved where further support was needed for people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. A review was currently underway to ensure all people had the required assessments in place where needed.

People liked the staff who came to their home and felt they were kind, caring and treated them with respect. People told us they were involved with decisions about their care and staff encouraged independence wherever possible. People told us they would like to have a more consistent team of staff to support them and the registered manager had taken action to address this. People’s records were handled in line with the Data Protection Act

Assessments of people’s needs were carried out before joining the service to ensure staff were able to support them effectively. Improvements had been made to ensure people received care that was in accordance with their personal preferences. People felt care staff responded to their complaints effectively although they felt the performance of office based staff could improve. The registered manager had put processes in place to act on this feedback. People’s diverse needs were discussed with them during their initial assessment and then during further reviews.

The registered manager had made significant improvements since the last inspection. They had acted on feedback from people and staff and put measures in place to continue this improvement. They acknowledged that staff punctuality was still a concern; however, this had improved since the last inspection. Robust quality assurance systems were now in place to aid the registered manager in continually improving the service. They were supported by a dedicated staff team and the provider in doing so. The registered manager carried out their role in line with their registration with the CQC. High quality staff performance was rewarded.