Background to this inspection
Updated
9 November 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 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.
This was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 15 October 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting people and staff. We therefore needed to be sure that someone would be available in the office to assist with the inspection.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service which included previous inspection reports and feedback from a relative of a person using the service. There had been no notifications since the previous inspection. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.
We reviewed the 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.
During the inspection we spoke with the relatives of the two people who used the service as they were both unable to speak with us themselves. We also spoke with the registered manager and one community professional. We looked at records relating to the management of the service including the support plans and associated records relating to the two people who received a service. We checked records related to managing medicines and reviewed the file of the one care staff member employed. We also reviewed the communication diary and audits. Following the inspection, we received feedback from the member of care staff.
Updated
9 November 2018
Mahogany Care – Holyport is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal and nursing care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older people, younger adults, people living with dementia and people with physical disabilities. Not everyone using Mahogany Care receives the regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do receive the regulated activity ‘personal care’, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care and support to two people.
The service had a registered manager as required. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 registered manager was present and assisted us during the inspection.
At our last inspection, we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Why the service is rated good:
People received support that was safe. Staff were knowledgeable in how to safeguard and protect people. People were supported with medicines and received them safely when they were required. Risks to people were assessed and actions taken to minimise risks without restricting their freedom. A robust recruitment procedure was in place to ensure as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. Appropriate personal protective equipment was supplied and used to prevent the spread of infection.
People continued to receive effective support from staff who were trained and had the necessary skills to fulfil their role. Staff were well supported by the registered manager and had an appraisal of their work annually. People were supported with maintaining a balanced diet and adequate hydration when this was part of their care plan. People’s healthcare needs were monitored and advice was sought from healthcare professionals when necessary. 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.
The service remained caring. Relatives told us people thought staff were kind and patient and they had formed trusting relationships with them. People’s privacy and dignity were protected; relatives told us staff treated people with respect. People and when appropriate relatives were fully involved in making decisions about their care. Staff encouraged people to maintain as much independence as possible.
The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Staff knew people very well and paid attention to finding out about their personal preferences. This enabled care and support to be focused to achieve people’s desired outcomes. Individual care plans were person-centred; they considered the diverse needs of each person, taking into account any protected characteristics. The service provided flexible support, embracing people’s individual wishes. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint; they felt confident they would be listened to if concerns were raised. The service was working to the accessible information standard.
The service was well-led, with strong leadership from the registered manager. Records were relevant, complete and reviewed regularly to reflect current information. The registered manager promoted an open, empowering, person-centred culture. The values of the service were embedded in the way the service was led. Feedback was sought and used to monitor the quality of the service. Audits were conducted and used to make improvements.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.