We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mercury Care Services Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Mercury Care Services Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Mercury Care Services is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. At the present time it provides a service for thirty people. Not everyone using the service receives personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found:
The provider had reviewed their medicines policy and procedure and all staff received appropriate training. This meant people received their medicines safely and staff had clear guidance to follow, informed by models of best practice.
Comprehensive risk assessments and risk management strategies were in place as part of the assessment and support planning process. This meant risks to people and to staff were minimised.
People were protected from the risk of abuse. The service had safeguarding procedures in place that staff were well aware of. Staff received training on safeguarding people.
There were robust recruitment practices in place and sufficient staff levels to meet people’s needs.
Accidents, incidents and risks were appropriately recorded and included details of preventive strategies used by the service to reduce the likelihood of events occurring in the future.
People's nutritional needs were met and where people required support with nutrition, care plans provided staff with guidance on people's support needs.
Services were delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff sought consent prior to providing care and offered people choices to encourage people to make their own decisions.
People were supported to have healthier lives. Staff assisted them to access health professionals when needed to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.
People told us they benefitted from caring relationships with the staff.
People were treated as individuals by staff committed to respecting people's individual preferences. Care plans were person centred and people were actively involved in developing their support plans.
The provider had systems in place to ensure concerns and complaints were responded to in an appropriate way.
The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified. The culture of the service was positive, open and person centred.
The service was well led by the registered manager who was keen to employ innovative ways of working to develop the service. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to people which ensured good governance.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update:
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 10 July 2018) with two breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection in line with our inspection schedule. We found the service met the characteristics of a "Good" rating in all areas.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care for people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting eight people. Not everyone using Mercury Care receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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.
Incidents were not always appropriately followed up to ensure that people were protected from avoidable harm. We identified two examples relating to one person receiving care that had not been properly followed up to ensure there was an effective risk management plan in place. Risk assessments were not always conducted to manage identified risks. We found two examples of identified risks that had not been properly explored through conducting risk assessments and having written risk management plans in place.
People’s medicines were not always managed safely. Care records did not include sufficient information about the medicines people were taking, the correct dose and other details care workers needed to assist people to take their medicines safely.
Quality monitoring systems did not ensure that issues were identified and remedied when needed.
People’s care records did not always contain sufficient information about their healthcare needs. We identified two examples within care records where people’s catheter care needs were not sufficiently explained. People’s nutritional needs were met.
Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Care workers obtained consent before providing care and care records were signed by people using the service or their assigned Lasting Power of Attorney to demonstrate that they consented to their care.
People gave good feedback about their care workers and care workers demonstrated they understood people’s individual needs. People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be and the provider supported people to access advocacy services when needed.
People were provided with dignified care and people told us they were treated with respect.
People told us they were involved in planning their care and care staff had a good understanding about people’s individual needs, but their care records sometimes lacked specific detail in what people’s requirements were.
Care records included information about people’s hobbies and past times and care workers were aware of these.
Care workers had received training in safeguarding people they supported from abuse and had a good understanding of the procedures in place.
The provider used safer recruitment procedures which helped ensure care workers were suitable to work with people. There were a sufficient number of suitable staff sent to assist people with their needs.
The provider had an appropriate complaints procedure in place and this was operated effectively.
Care staff were appropriately trained and received ongoing support to conduct their roles.
Care workers had a good understanding about infection control and had received appropriate training.
We found a breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
This report only covers our findings in relation to the information of concern. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Mercury Care Services Limited Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Mercury Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency delivering care to older people in their homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 13 people.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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.
Medicines care plans did not always contain enough information for care workers to refer to. However, there was sufficient information on people’s medicines administration charts to minimise the risk of error.
The provider conducted checks to ensure staff were eligible to work in the UK.
Care workers attended to people on time and stayed for the full length of their calls.
Care records contained sufficient information about people’s nutritional needs. However, there was very little information about people’s likes and dislikes in relation to food.
Mercury Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency delivering care to older people in their homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support to 31 people.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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.
Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and knew what actions to take to protect people if they suspected abuse. Risk assessments identified avoidable harm and plans were implemented to mitigate risks. The provider used a robust recruitment process to ensure that staff were suitable and safe to work with people. Staff supported people to take their medicines in line with prescriber’s instructions and they used appropriate hygiene practices to reduce people’s risk of infection.
The staff delivering care and support to people were trained and supervised. Staff and the registered manager were understood their responsibility to provide support to people in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] People consented to the care they received and were provided with the level of support they required to eat and drink safely and sufficiently. People were supported to use healthcare services whenever they needed to.
People and their relatives told us that staff were respectful, polite and kind. The provider ensured a continuity of staff delivering care and support to promote positive relationships. People had their privacy protected and their independence promoted.
The service was responsive to people’s individual needs. People had care plans in place which directed staff as to how people’s assessed needs should be met. People knew how to make a complaint and were regularly invited to share their views about the service they were in receipt of.
Good governance was in evidence at the service. The roles and responsibilities of the leadership team, office staff and care staff were understood by all staff. Quality assurance monitoring was effective and on-going. The provider worked in partnership with other agencies to achieve best outcomes for people.