Midlands Care Direct

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspect where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks relating to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, no person was receiving a service under the provider’s home care service. One person was living in supported living who received the regulated activity.

At the time of the inspection, no person with a learning disability or autistic person was receiving the regulated activity of personal care. However, we expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ and found the service was meeting these principles.

This is the first inspection for this service.

This inspection identified that the provider was in breach of 1 legal regulation relating to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.

The provider’s governance systems and processes for assessing, monitoring and reviewing the quality and safety of the service were not fully effective. Although no one had come to harm, the inspection identified areas where improvement was required. The registered manager acknowledged the identified shortfalls. They implemented some immediate improvements and informed us of further actions they intended to take to address the concerns and strengthen governance arrangements.

Staff were recruited safely. However, some improvements were required to ensure consistency in procedures. Staff received an induction and ongoing training, and staff told us they felt well supported.

Medicines optimisation required some improvements. Whilst staff completed annual refresher training, they had not had their competency assessed. The registered manager took immediate actions to address this.

Care plan and risk assessments guidance for staff required improvements in some areas. We concluded this was a recording issue and the person using the service was supported by an established and experienced staff team who knew them well.

Safeguarding procedures were understood by staff. Staff demonstrated an understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities and were confident in recognising and reporting concerns.

The provider had effective incident management systems and processes in place and promoted a positive learning culture. Lessons learned from incidents were used to support the person to remain safe.