Archived: H.M. Care Agency

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that safe work practices were in place for people using the service. People told us they felt safe and trusted the staff employed. One person told us, 'I do feel safe and the owner is careful who she employs'. Another said, 'The owner came to give the care for the first two days I used the service to make sure she knew how I wanted things done'.

We spoke with staff and they told us they knew how to report any concerns or abuse and they were confident the provider would listen to them and take appropriate action to safeguard people.

The staff and the provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its main Codes of Practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (as they related to domiciliary care) and put them into practice to protect people.

Staff felt the work arrangements also considered their safety. They were provided with core training including manual handling, safeguarding vulnerable adults and health, safety and hygiene. This enabled staff to carry out their role safely.

Staff told us that they had received induction training at the start of their employment so that they would be clear about their roles and responsibilities towards people in their care.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with told us they were pleased with the service provided and that their needs were met.

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with each individual care plan. Staff we spoke with understood people's care needs and the support they were to provide. People told us they had been involved in the assessment of their needs prior to accepting care from the agency.

Staff received effective support, supervision and training. This meant that people received care from staff who had the knowledge and skills necessary to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

Is the service caring?

People told us that they were treated with kindness and that their dignity was respected when receiving personal care. People explained how their individual needs were met, including needs around age and disability.

Staff we spoke with knew the people they were caring for well, including their preferences and personal histories. One person told us, 'They are very good, I can't fault them'. Another said 'They help with my skin creams where I can't reach' and 'They are kind and don't rush you'. This meant that caring, positive relationships were developed between people and the staff coming into their homes.

Is the service responsive?

People said that they and their family were encouraged to make their views known about their care and support. This meant people were actively involved in making decisions about their care and support.

The way staff talked about people showed that they actively sought and listened to people's views. Care records detailed how people's individual needs and requests had been responded to. There were examples of when staff had responded to people's changing needs and concerns about their health and welfare.

There was evidence that the service was working closely with community health professionals such as district nurses and occupational therapists (OT). Equipment assessed by an OT was on order for one person after the agency had sought their input. Recording tools had been developed as a result of feedback from health professionals. Examples included the recording of catheter bag changes and the monitoring of skin integrity for those at risk of pressure area damage.

Is the service well-led?

The service was managed by the owner who still delivered care and support directly to several people. Staff felt well trained and supported. They always had support from the senior staff and found communication effective.

The provider had responded positively and addressed the two areas of non-compliance found at the inspection in January 2014. Quality assurance arrangements now included audits and procedures to gain people's consent to receive care had been expanded to cover when people lacked mental capacity to give consent.

We found that the provider did not have a suitable consent policy in place or a process to gain people's consent to the care they received. They were not aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) in respect of consent or best interest assessments.

We found that staff had an understanding of the needs of people who used the service. We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a safe way, which met people's individual care needs. People we spoke with were positive about the care they received. One person told us, "The staff are very good and caring". One relative told us, "They meet my relative's needs".

The staff we spoke with were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew how to keep people safe.

We found that there was an effective recruitment process in place to ensure that staff had the skills to meet people's needs.

We found the provider did not regularly assess and manage the risks associated with providing the service.