The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: MiHomecare - Ilford

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Unit 26a, Bourne Court, Unity Trading Estate, Southend Road, Woodford Green, Essex, IG8 8HD 0333 121 7701

Provided and run by:
MiHomecare Limited

All Inspections

7 June 2017

During a routine inspection

We inspected Mi Homecare Ltd on 7 June 2017. We gave the provider 24 hours' notice of our inspection to make sure the appropriate people would be there to assist us with our inspection. Mi Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care service based in Ilford, Essex. The service provide personal care and support to approximately 120 people in their own homes. Staff support people using the service with a wide range of needs, including assistance with personal care, domestic tasks, shopping and making meals.

On the day of the inspection, the service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received mixed responses about the service from people who use it. While some people were happy with the level of care provided, others were not.

People were at risk of receiving poor support because there was a lack of specific risk assessments. They did not give guidance to staff about how to manage and mitigate risk for people such as the use of bed rails. Support plans were not personalised and lacked detail. The service had not identified the issues we found at the time of inspection.

Detailed support plans were not in place and records were not always updated following changes in people's needs. People were supported by staff if needed, to access support from healthcare professionals where required. We found that medicines were not always administered safely by staff.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided through seeking people's feedback and carrying out spot checks. However, these were not sufficiently robust as they had not identified the issues we found during our inspection. An overview of where improvements were required was not undertaken in order to make improvements.

Staff received sufficient training, supervision and yearly appraisals of their work and performance. Staff had a basic understanding of the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). We found recruitment checks were in place to ensure new staff were suitable to work at the service. Staff had positive views about the leadership and staff culture of the service.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. The provider carried out checks to ensure that staff employed were of good character.

Staff were generally deployed in a way that people received care from consistent staff. People told us that they got along well with staff that knew them well.

People who used the service and their relatives told us the staff were caring. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and encouraged them to maintain their independence.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint, these were satisfactorily dealt with by the management team. Staff felt supported by management and felt able to approach them with any concerns.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities)Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

11 August 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This unannounced inspection took place on 11 August 2015. At the last inspection of this service in July 2014, we found breaches of legal requirements. This was because risk assessments for people were not thoroughly recorded. People's care plans and risk assessments did not set out how and when they required support to take their medicines. Care plans and risk assessments were not reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed. Complaints and concerns were not effectively dealt with. There was a lack of a robust quality assurance and audit process to check if people’s needs were being met and that the service was operating safely. The provider sent us an action plan stating the steps they would take to address the issues identified. On 11 August 2015, we undertook a comprehensive inspection to check that the provider had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and that the service now met the required standards.

MiHomecare Ilford provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. The service has 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.

People told us they felt safe and trusted the staff who came into their home to support them. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to safeguard adults at risk of harm. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to reduce the risk of harm. The service had an effective system in place to recruit staff.

There were enough staff to provide the support people required. People were supported by a consistent team of staff and told us they were reliable.

People were supported to have their medicines safely. Staff were trained in safe handling and administration of medicines. The medicine procedure was based on good practice guidelines.

People made positive comments about the staff and told us they had confidence in their abilities. We saw the service had a comprehensive induction programme in place and the staff had access to on going training and supervision.

People were supported to have a good diet. Where staff identified concerns regarding weight loss they would report their concerns to their supervisor or the person’s family member.

The service worked to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff supported people to make their own choices about their care.

Care was planned and delivered in partnership with people and their families. Care plans were person centred and focused on people’s well-being. Care was reviewed on a regular basis.

People knew how to make complaints. The service investigated complaints and were keen to improve the service. Care staff told us they enjoyed working for the organisation and felt supported.

The provider’s quality team carried out regular monitoring visits to the service. The team completed audits to assess the quality of the service and made recommendations for any improvements, which were followed up by the registered manager. People and staff felt involved and able to make suggestions or raise concerns.

22 July 2014

During a routine inspection

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission which looks at the overall quality of the service.

MiHomecare Limited provide personal care and support to 173 people in their own homes. The service has a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

This was an announced inspection. We received mixed responses about the service from people who use it. While some people were happy with the level of care provided, others were not.

People's safety was being compromised in a number of areas.This included a lack of detailed risk assessments, how medicines were managed, how well infection-control measures were implemented by care workers and inadequate monitoring of late/missed calls.

We found that people's needs were not always assessed by the service prior to them receiving personal care. People's health care needs were not always assessed and identified. Care plans were not individualised and delivered consistently. In some cases, this either put people at risk or meant they were not having their individual care needs met.

Although people told us they felt their privacy and dignity were respected and made positive comments about care workers, care was mainly based around completing tasks and did not take account of people's preferences or meet their individual needs.

The service, in some cases, investigated and responded to people's complaints. This was not consistently followed and people did not feel that sufficient changes were made as a result of issues raised.

Care workers received basic training but it did not include training in specific areas such as diabetes or dementia care. People raised concerns about care workers often rushing to provide care, arriving late or not arriving at all.

The process of monitoring the quality of care was not effective as it had not picked up some of the concerns we found and therefore had not led to the necessary improvements.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

10 May 2013

During a routine inspection

Enara - Ilford was providing care to around 280 people in Redbridge and Waltham Forest. We spoke with 12 people who use the service or their relatives. People told us they were happy with the service overall. Comments included, "superb" and "excellent." A relative said, "[my family member] never has any complaints - that's proof of the pudding."

People said they were involved in decisions about their care and their care workers respected their wishes. They praised the care workers as friendly and respectful. One relative said, "[my family member] is quite slow to get out of their wheelchair. But there's never any pressure. The [care workers] have never been pushing or moaning at them to move more quickly." Care records gave staff clear information to help them to meet people's needs safely.

The agency had policies and procedures in place regarding the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. The staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns.

Senior staff monitored the service and checked that staff followed care plans. People using the service were asked for feedback and the agency had developed an action plan as a result. Staff said they were well supported in their roles with access to training and supervision.