Archived: Mayfair Homecare - Merton

Updated 6 August 2022

The inspection

We carried out this performance review and assessment under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act). We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements of the regulations associated with the Act and looked at the quality of the service to provide a rating.

Unlike our standard approach to assessing performance, we did not physically visit the office of the location. This is a new approach we have introduced to reviewing and assessing performance of some care at home providers. Instead of visiting the office location we use technology such as electronic file sharing and video or phone calls to engage with people using the service and staff.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of 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.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

Registered Manager

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with nine people who used the service, nine relatives and nine members of staff including the registered manager.

We reviewed a range of records. This included eight people’s care records and various staff records. We looked at and reviewed multiple documents submitted by the provider. These included policies and other information relevant to the running of the service.

This performance review and assessment was carried out without a visit to the location’s office. We used technology such as video calls to enable us to engage with people using the service and staff, and electronic file sharing to enable us to review documentation.

Inspection activity started on 17 June 2022 and ended on 1 July 2022.

Updated 6 August 2022

About the service

Mayfair Homecare – Merton is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes and flats. At the time of our inspection, 41 people were receiving personal care and support.

Not everyone who used the service received 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

People were at risk of not always receiving safe care. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs. However, some had experienced delays or received care earlier than scheduled. The rotas did not always allow sufficient travel time for staff to get to calls without delays. Comments included, “Bit of an issue if they put [relative] to bed before 7 pm, which is too early” and “[Relative] doesn’t usually know who is coming at the weekend, and feels a bit disturbed about that.” The majority of people and their relatives told us they were happy with the care and support provided. Comments included, “[Carers] are nice girls. They are really lovely” and “Yes, [carers] do a good job.”

People received care delivered in a manner that minimised the risk of avoidable harm. Comments included, “[Carers] are good at what they do” and “I feel safe with them.” Staff were able to describe how they identified and reported potential abuse to keep people safe. Risks to people were identified and managed well to minimise harm.

People received the support they required to manage and take their medicines safely. Staff practiced safe infection control and prevention processes in line with best practice guidelines including those associated with COVID-19 to reduce spread of infection.

The provider ensured safe recruitment practices and robust induction which ensured suitability of new staff to provide care. Staff attended training and supervision to support them to undertake their caring roles. Staff received the support they required to ensure they met people’s needs.

People enjoyed positive and meaningful caring relationships with staff who provided their care. Staff ensured they maintained people’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality. People consented to the care and support they received from staff. People received appropriate encouragement to live as independently as possible and to make choices about their daily living.

People underwent an assessment and regular review of their needs and support plans which ensured delivery of appropriate care to them. Staff supported people to access healthcare services when required. People understood the processes of how to make a complaint and felt confident to raise concerns.

Improvements were made because regular checks and audits were carried out on the quality of care. People, staff and relatives were asked about their views of the service and felt valued. Partnership working with other agencies, health and social care professionals and external organisations ensured people using the service received appropriate care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The last rating for the service under the previous provider was good, published on 10 April 2019.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.