MiHomecare Cambridge

Updated 19 October 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

This announced inspection took place between 4 and 11 September 2018. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and two experts by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their area of expertise was caring for older people and people living with dementia.

We gave the service five days’ notice of the inspection site visits because some of the people using it could not consent to a home visit from an inspector, which meant that we had to arrange for a ‘best interests’ decision about this. We also gained people's and relatives' consent for us to call them by telephone.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least annually. This provides us with information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to assist us with the planning of this inspection. We also looked at other information we held about the service. This included information from responses to our survey questionnaire as well as notifications the provider sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law such as incidents or allegations of harm.

Prior to our inspection we contacted the local safeguarding authority and commissioners of the service to ask them about their views of the service. These organisations’ views helped us to plan our inspection.

On the 4, 5 and 7 September we spoke with 10 people who used the service, and four relatives of people who were not able to speak with us. On 10 September 2018 we visited the provider's office and we spoke with the registered manager, the quality performance manager, two field care supervisors and three care staff. On 11 September 2018 we spoke with a further three care staff.

We looked at care documentation for five people using the service and their medicines' administration records. We also looked at three staff files, staff training and supervision planning records and other records relating to the management of the service. These included records associated with audit and quality assurance, accidents and incidents, compliments and complaints.

Updated 19 October 2018

This announced inspection took place between the 4 and 11 September 2018. This is the first inspection of MiHomecare Cambridge since it was registered in September 2017.

MiHomecare Cambridge is a domiciliary (home care) care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger people, older people, people living with dementia, people with a physical disability and people with sensory impairments. Not everyone using MiHomecare Cambridge receives the regulated activity of personal care. 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.

At the time of our inspection there were 191 people using the service.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

The service was safe. People were safeguarded by staff who knew how to recognise and report any concerns. The provider identified risks to people and managed them well. Sufficient staff were in post and the recruitment process for new staff had helped ensure that only suitable staff were employed. Lessons were learned when things had not gone well and prompt action was taken to keep people safe. Staff administered medicines and managed them safely. Staff helped people to maintain a clean environment.

The service was effective. Staff met people’s needs and had the right training and skills to do this effectively. People had a varied and healthy diet and enough to eat and drink. People were enabled to access health care services. People were given choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The registered manager worked with other organisations such as the local authority who were involved in people’s care to help ensure that when people used the service they received consistent care.

The service was caring. People were cared for by staff and supported in a compassionate way. People’s privacy and dignity were promoted and respected. People were supported and encouraged to use an advocacy service if this was required. People using the service were involved in deciding how their care was provided. People were treated with fairness whatever their needs were.

The service was responsive. People received person-centred care that was based on their needs. Staff used mobile phones to record their care visits to enhance the quality of people’s lives. The provider encouraged people to raise concerns when required. Concerns were responded to effectively and this helped drive improvement. Systems were in place to support people, staff and family members if any person needed support with end of life care.

The service was well-led. The registered manager led by example and ensured the staff had the right skills and values. Staff worked as a team to help people and each other. Procedures were in place that were effective in identifying and acting on improvements when these were needed. People had a say in how the service was run. The registered manager provided support to staff in a positive way. An open and honest staff team culture was in place. The registered manager and staff worked in partnership with others including the local safeguarding team.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.