Archived: Melody Care

Updated 1 March 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 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 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 9 December 2015, with a follow-up visit to the agency’s office on 16 December 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice. We did this to ensure the managers were available to meet with us and provide access to records. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications and other correspondence. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection. The provider also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) before our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Along with the PIR, the provider sent us a contact list of people who used the service, their relatives, staff employed and other professionals involved with the agency. Using this information we sent out questionnaires to a range of people. We received responses from 18 people, three relatives and eight staff.

During our inspection we went to the agency’s office and spoke to the two registered managers (one of whom was also the provider) and three staff. We reviewed a variety of documents which included six people’s care plans, four staff files and other records relating to the management of the service.

After the inspection, we conducted telephone interviews with six people who used the service and six relatives of people who received care. We also telephoned a further two care staff to seek their views on working for the agency.

We spoke with two other health and social care professionals who were involved in the care provided to people who used the service.

Melody Care was last inspected in September 2013 where we had no concerns.

Updated 1 March 2016

We undertook an announced inspection of Melody Care over two days on 9 and 16 December 2015. We told the provider two days before our visit that we were coming to make sure that someone would be available to support the inspection and give us access to the agency’s records. Melody Care provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 65 people were receiving a personal care service from the agency, most of whom were older people or people with physical needs.

The agency had two registered managers, one of whom was also the provider. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that Melody Care was an efficient and effective agency. People who received services from them spoke highly of quality of care. Both people and their relatives praised the kindness and compassionate nature of care staff who they frequently described as “Going the extra mile to support them.” People, relatives and staff who had experience of other agencies told us that “This company compares so much better.”

Care staff worked in geographical teams which meant that most people benefited from the support of a regular team of staff. People told us that care staff “Know me very well” and that they received consistently good care. Care staff said that their jobs were made easier by being able to support a regular group of people whose needs and preferences they knew well.

People told us that they felt “Very safe” as a result of the care they received and several relatives commented that their family members were able to remain living in their own homes because of the care they received. The service had appropriate systems to safeguard people from the risk of harm or abuse and staff were knowledgeable about how to keep protect people and keep them safe.

The care philosophy for the service stated ’We know that if we are to provide the highest possible standard of care ….we must…recruit very special people with a great attitude …and train them thoroughly.’ We saw that the agency placed a lot of effort into the recruitment, selection and training of its staff. The outcome of this was reflected in the consistently positive comments we received about care staff. People described staff as “Absolutely brilliant” and “Well trained.” Similarly relatives told us “My family member receives excellent care from them” and “I totally trust them.”

The service had a comprehensive programme of training and staff told us that they had the training and support to undertake their roles. Staff demonstrated to us that they were aware of their responsibilities and knew how to deliver high quality care. Where people were supported with their medicines, this was done safely and appropriately.

The service was responsive to changes in people’s needs and tailored their services accordingly. People were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and supported to be as independent as possible. People were assisted to maintain good health and supported to access appropriate healthcare services. One relative told us “They have helped my family member to improve their health and we have managed to reduce his care needs from four calls a day to two calls a day and it’s mostly down to their help.”

Melody Care had good systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of its services. People were regularly asked for their feedback and satisfaction surveys sent to both people and staff were used to identify areas of concern or improvement. Where people raised complaints, these were investigated and attempts made to resolve issues to the satisfaction of people.