Archived: Millies Care and Support Agency

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their plans of care if they wanted to. People told us their care plan reflected their current needs.

We found the management of people's medicines was well organised and staff were trained effectively to carry this out safely.

Is the service caring?

One person described the staff as "extremely caring and experienced and know me very well. Staff are very polite and cheerful." Another person said "I cannot fault the care and attention I receive. I have regular carers which is important to me, they know me very well and I don't have to keep explaining what needs to be done and when. They are kind and that matters to me". A relative explained: "X is very pleased with the staff she has support her. The important thing for me is that she is well looked after and that gives us as a family peace of mind." Another person described the care they received as "exceptionally good, they don't rush me and work at my pace. They have sufficient time to deliver what I expect and need". A person described the staff as being 'absolutely wonderful to me'.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were reviewed regularly and in response to any changing needs. We saw information in people's records which indicated they had been consulted over the care they received. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. This meant that information about people's preferences was gathered and used to plan care to meet their specific needs.

People were supported to maintain relationships with people that were important to them.

The service worked in partnership with key organisations, such as the local authority, to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

Is the service well-led?

People using the service had regular opportunities in a variety of formats to have their say about the service. For example, people could discuss their views during each visit with the member of care staff and frequently during spot checks by a member of the management team. Everyone we spoke with said the communication between them and staff was effective.

Regular audits were completed and we saw any shortfalls had been addressed promptly. This meant the quality of the service was continuingly monitored and being improved.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the agency. This helped to ensure people received a good quality of service at all times. All of the staff told us they would report poor practice if they witnessed it.