Background to this inspection
Updated
26 March 2019
The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.
Service and service type: This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to younger and older adults. At the time of inspection 13 people were using the service.
The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of inspection. The manager told us they were applying to be registered at the end of their three-month probationary period in March 2019. The manager, when registered, and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.’
Notice of inspection: We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection visit because it is a small service. We needed to be sure that the manager would be in the office.
Inspection activity started on 7 March 2019 with a visit to the office location. We made telephone calls to people, staff and relatives on 16 March 2019.
What we did: Before the inspection the provider sent us a Provider Information Return. Providers are required to send us information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
We reviewed information we held about the service such as when the provider told us about serious injuries. A notification is information about events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We contacted commissioners to seek their feedback. We received no information of concern. During the site visit we spoke with the manager. We reviewed a range of records. These included four people’s care records. We also looked at four staff files to check staff recruitment and their training records. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service and a variety of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider. After the site visit we contacted one person and three relatives of people who use the service and three support workers.
Updated
26 March 2019
About the service: 2M Health and Home Care Services Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to younger and older adults. At the time of inspection 13 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service: People told us they felt safe and were well-supported. One relative commented, “I trust the workers 101%” There were sufficient staff hours available to meet people's needs in a safe and consistent way, and staff roles were flexible to allow this. Staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse.
Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of people’s care and support needs. They received the training they needed and regular supervision and support. The service assisted people, where required, in meeting their health care and nutritional needs. Staff worked together, and with other professionals, in co-ordinating people’s care.
Staff had developed good relationships with people, were caring in their approach and treated people with kindness and respect.
Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines in a safe way. Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks.
People were involved in decisions about their care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Information was accessible to involve people in decision making about their lives.
There were opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give their views about the service. Processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns. The manager undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.
Communication was effective and staff and people were listened to. Staff said they felt well-supported and were aware of their responsibility to share any concerns about the care provided.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated good (9 August 2016.)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained good.
Follow up: We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore re-inspect this service within the published timeframe for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.