Archived: MiHomecare - Isleworth

The service was last inspected on 30 April 2013 and at the time was found to be meeting all the regulations we looked at.

MiHomecare – Isleworth 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 52 people using the service. MiHomecare – Isleworth 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.

Staff did not always follow the procedure for recording and safe administration of medicines. This meant that people were at risk of not receiving their medicines safely.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, however these had failed to highlight issues with the safe recording and administration of people’s medicines.

Recruitment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they supported people unsupervised, although one staff file we looked at only contained one character reference.

The manager was not regularly supervised or appraised by senior management although they told us they met regularly.

The service employed enough staff and contingency plans were in place in case of staff absence.

There were procedures for safeguarding adults and the staff were aware of these.

The risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed.

Staff received the training and support they needed to care for people.

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 (2005).

People’s health and nutritional needs had been assessed, recorded and were being monitored.

Feedback from people and relatives was positive about both the staff and the provider.People and relatives said the carers were kind, caring and respected their privacy and dignity. Most people received care from regular carers and 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.

The service conducted satisfaction surveys of people and their relatives. These provided vital information about the quality of the service provided.

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

Staff thought their manager was supportive and approachable.

People told us that they were very happy with the service. Comments included 'the care workers are lovely, we have not had a bad one' and 'the office staff are very helpful when I ring up, they are always polite and obliging'.

We reviewed four care plans and found that people were receiving care that met their assessed needs.

People had been given the opportunity to provide feedback about the service, which meant that people were listened to and included in decisions about the way their care was delivered.

Adequate procedures were in place for reporting and dealing with any concerns about the welfare of people using the service and staff had received training in safeguarding adults. This ensured people were protected against the risk of abuse.

The service had thorough recruitment policies and procedures in place, which were followed, ensuring that the appropriate pre-employment checks were undertaken. This meant that people using the service were cared for by suitably qualified staff.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.