Archived: MiHomecare - Huntingdon

MiHomecare - Huntingdon is a domiciliary care service that is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. Their office is based on the outskirts of Huntingdon. The service provided included that for older people and people with a physical disability as well as people living with dementia. The service is provided in Huntingdon and the surrounding towns and villages. At the time of our inspection there were 60 people using the service.

The service did not have a registered manager. They left in December 2014. There had been two other interim managers prior to the current manager who had been in post since November 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Staff were recruited in a safe way and checks were in place to confirm this People’s assessed care needs were met in a timely manner by suitably trained and qualified staff.

Staff were trained and knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure people were kept safe from harm. This included a thorough understanding of organisations with responsibilities for investigating any or potential concerns such as the local safe guarding authority.

Medicines management and administration was undertaken in a safe way. This was by staff whose competency to do this safely was regularly assessed.

The manager was aware of the process to be followed should any person have a need to be lawfully deprived of their liberty. They and staff were knowledgeable about the situations where an assessment of people’s mental capacity was required. The service was working within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 code of practice.

Staff had a good knowledge of the people they cared for and what people’s level of independence was. Care was provided with privacy and dignity. Appropriate risk management strategies and records were in place for emergency events and subjects including falls and medicines administration.

People were provided with various opportunities to be involved in their care needs assessment

People’s health and nutritional care needs were identified by staff and met by staff and through a range of health care professionals including a GP occupational therapist or GP. Staff ensured people ate and drank sufficient quantities.

People were supported with their independence to live in their own home as long as they wanted to.

Staff were provided with a formal induction, regular and effective training, supervision and mentoring that was appropriate to the staff’s roles.

People were provided with information as to how to make and raise suggestion and improvements to their care. The provider took appropriate action to ensure any complaints were addressed to the complainant’s satisfaction.

A range of effective audit and quality assurance procedures were in place. The provider had processes in place to help ensure that the CQC is notified about events that they are required, by law, to do so.

As part of this inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service, two family members, the registered manager and five members of care staff. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included six care plans, daily care records, safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures, staff recruitment and training records and quality assurance monitoring records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

Staff were only employed at the service after all essential safety and security checks had been satisfactorily completed. Reviews of people's care needs ensured that the care that was provided was based upon each person's most up to date needs. People's health needs were assessed and risk assessments put in place regarding people's individual needs. This was to minimise any potential risks as far as reasonably practicable. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in making sure people were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider ensured that all staff were kept up to date with safeguarding training and accompanying reporting procedures.

Is the service effective?

Where we visited people in their home (with care workers) we found that care staff were knowledgeable about people's individual care and support needs. Observations we made during our inspection confirmed that the care staff respected people's dignity and always used appropriate language when providing care in the way that people wanted. All seven people we spoke with confirmed to us that they had made informed choices regarding their care when they first started to use the service. One person told us, "I can do things now that I have not been able to do in the past. They have made such a difference to my life. I am much more independent now." The same seven people confirmed to us that they had a positive experience of using the service and that their needs were consistently and reliably met.

Is the service caring?

During our visits to people's homes and talking with people on the second day of our inspection we found that people were provided with care which was genuine and sincere whilst respecting each person's independence. One person we spoke with said, "They are very open and honest and I feel totally at ease when they care for me." Another person told us, 'They (care workers) always knock and let me know that they have arrived. They are all just brilliant.' Staff told us that the manager's door was always open and that if they ever had any concerns they felt confident that they would be supported.

Is the service responsive?

Care records we looked at demonstrated to us that where a person's care needs changed or needed to be changed that action had been taken to promptly meet people's needs. People were provided with additional equipment in response to changes in their health condition where care staff had identified such a need. We saw that people's personal care and support needs were assessed and met. This also included people's individual choices and preferences as to how they liked to be supported. We saw and found that people were able to make changes to their support and had been regularly involved in reviews of their support. Records we looked at also showed us that people's care was reviewed according to the level of risk they exhibited. People at an increased risk were prioritised in the event of an emergency such as inclement weather.

Is the service well led?

At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in post. All of the staff we spoke with felt effectively supported by the manager. Audits and checks had been completed to ensure that staff were providing care to the required standard and that this was done consistently. The manager ensured that care staff were only permitted to work with vulnerable adults where their security clearances had been satisfactorily completed on a regular basis. The monitoring of care staff ensured that they worked to the required standard. People who used the service and staff were regularly asked for their views and opinions on the quality of care that was provided. Where improvements had been required, we saw that these had in the majority of cases, been made.

We found that the provider was compliant with the regulations in all the areas we assessed. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

People said the manager and office staff responded to their issues and would telephone or visit. One person said: 'Lisa is very approachable and would look into anything. She's very good".

Medication was administered by staff that were trained and competent. Staff had received other training which meant people had safe and appropriate care.