Archived: Moorcare

Updated 1 February 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 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.’

The inspection took place on 03 December 2015 and the visit was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be present in the office This inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, we sent out 50 surveys to people who used the service, staff and community professionals. 14 surveys were returned and we have included their responses in the inspection report. We also reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included any statutory notifications that had been sent to us. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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.’We contacted the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

At the time of our inspection there were 70 people who used the service. During the inspection we went to the providers head office. We reviewed care records of 10 people who used the service, reviewed the records of eight care staff and the records relating to the management of the service. We also spoke with five care staff, two supervisors, and the registered manager and senior care worker. After the inspection visit we spoke on the phone with five people who used the service and three relatives of people who used the service.

Updated 1 February 2016

We undertook an announced inspection of Moorcare on 03 December 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our visit to ensure the manager of the service would be available. At the last inspection in September 2013 we found the provider met the regulations we looked at.

Moorcare provides personal care services to people in their own homes. The agency is managed and owned by the Leeds Jewish Welfare Board. The agency provides a service in Moortown and surrounding areas to older people and some younger adults. At the time of our inspection 70 people were receiving a personal care service.

A registered manager was in post and present for the inspection. 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.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff told us they were able to speak with the registered manager if they had any concerns. The service completed spot checks on staff whilst they worked and formal supervisions.

People told us they felt safe using the service. People said their call times were adhered to. We saw policies and practice that ensured people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and felt well supported by them.

Robust recruitment processes were in place which ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to protect vulnerable adults. They told us they had attended safeguarding training and were aware of the policies in place regarding reporting concerns.

We saw staff had been trained in the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and they had a good understanding of the principles of the Act. The registered manager had a training matrix which identified all the training needs for staff.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage the medicines of the people who used the service.

Staff supported people to healthcare appointments and provided personal care as required to meet people’s needs. People were supported with meals and drinks in their home and were given choices in what they would like.

Moorcare had a complaints policy in place. People who used the service, their relatives and staff knew how to complain. Complaints and compliments were dealt with in accordance with the policy.

There was an accidents and incidents file in the office which had an updated policy in place. At the time of the inspection there had been no accidents or incidents. This was confirmed by the staff and people we spoke with on the day of inspection.

The registered manager did not have effective audits in place for staff supervisions, appraisals or training. This was due to unforeseen staff management issues, the registered manager and the supervisors were looking into ensuring that all audits were in place and effective for the service at the time of our inspection.