Melton Care Services Limited

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We inspected the service due to its registration date. This is the first rated inspection of this service.

Risk management and mitigation were not sufficiently robust. Known risks associated with people’s care and support needs had either not been assessed or had not been adequately assessed and planned for. Staff had not received training in all areas of people’s known needs and risks associated with their care and support needs. People’s communication needs were not consistently and or effectively assessed and planned for. Staff had received training in learning disability autism.

The provider’s internal systems and processes, which were used to assess, monitor, and review quality and safety, had not identified all the shortfalls found during this inspection.

Whilst improvements were required, no person had come to harm, the provider was required to strengthen their risk management and governance procedures.

People received care and support from regular staff who knew them well. Improvements were required in staff recruitment procedures. Staff understood their role and responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.

People underwent a pre-assessment before receiving care. We identified some additional training areas for staff. The provider told us these would be added to their training programme.

Risks in relation to the environment and equipment used to support people had been assessed and planned for.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to deliver safe care and support. Staff received regular support and ongoing training. Whilst a local bypass had at times meant travel times had been unpredictable, care calls were largely within the planned scheduled time frame.

The provider’s electronic care monitoring calls showed examples of care calls with durations shorter than the planned length of the call. However, this contradicted what people told us, who confirmed that staff stayed for the duration of the call and only left early if the person asked them to do so. The provider confirmed this was correct and advised they would better record this in their analysis of call monitoring.

People received care and support that respected their privacy and dignity. People’s routines and preferences in how they wished to receive their care and support were recorded and met. Independence, choice and control were promoted.

Where people required support with their prescribed medicines, hydration, and nutritional needs, these were assessed, planned for and met. Staff monitored individuals' health needs and well-being and acted in response to any changes.

A new manager was in post, and during the inspection period, became the registered manager. Staff were positive about the improvements made to the service under their leadership. This included better communication and support.

The management team was open and honest about the challenges they had experienced with managing the service earlier in the year and the impact this had on the service. At the time of the inspection, the provider was in the process of implementing a new electronic care monitoring system. Staff had access to care records via a secure App on their phone.

This inspection identified that the provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment and good governance.

We have requested that the provider develop an action plan in response to the concerns identified during this inspection.