Archived: MiHomecare - Carterton

Updated 6 January 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 inspection took place on 28 November 2017 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that the management would be available in the office to assist with the inspection.

Inspection site visit activity started on 28 November 2017 and ended on 28 November 2017. It included reviewing records kept in the office and telephone interviews with people using the service. We visited the office location on 28 November 2017 to interview the manager and office staff, and to examine care records and policies and procedures.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an Expert by Experience. 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 assisted with this inspection had experience of working with elderly people and people living with dementia.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service which included notifications they had sent us. Notifications are sent to the Care Quality Commission to inform us of events relating to the service which they must inform us of by law.

We asked health care professionals if they had any information to share with us about the services provided at the home. We used this information in our judgement.

On the day of our inspection we spoke with eleven people, five relatives and the acting manager. After the inspection we contacted five members of staff to obtain their opinion on the service. We reviewed care plans for five people, four staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the service such as audits, policies and procedures.

Updated 6 January 2018

We undertook an announced inspection of MiHomecare - Carterton on 28 November 2017.

MiHomecare - Carterton is registered as a domiciliary care agency and as such provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection about 60 people were receiving services.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

Appropriate actions were taken to ensure people’s safety was maintained. Risks to people had been identified, assessed and were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed. The registered provider followed safe and robust recruitment procedures. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely.

People received effective care. Staff were supported to undertake training needed for their professional development, including nationally recognised qualifications. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals which enabled them to develop their understanding of good practice and to fulfil their roles effectively. Where people were unable to make certain decisions about their care, the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. People were supported to have their health needs met by health and social care professionals, including their GP and a speech and language therapist (SALT). People were offered a healthy balanced diet and when people required support to eat and drink, this was provided in line with relevant professionals’ guidance.

The service continued to provide support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and treated them with respect. People had developed positive relationships with staff and were treated in a caring and respectful manner. People were supported to be as independent as they possibly could be.

The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint. When concerns had been raised, they had been dealt with effectively to the complainants’ satisfaction.

The service was led by an acting manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. There was a positive culture that valued people, relatives and staff. Staff were given appropriate responsibility which was continuously monitored and checked by the registered manager. A system to monitor, maintain and improve the quality of the service was in place.