MELM Care Solutions

People were not always protected from risk of financial exploitation, as risk assessments and oversight processes were not effective at ensuring financial security. Hand drying facilities were not always available, this prevented effective hand hygiene. There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines as prescribed, and the providers systems and processes supported safe medicine practices.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always upheld. Capacity related needs were not fully assessed to ensure people received appropriate care that maintained least restrictive practices. People were supported to make choices around food and drink. Staff demonstrated good understanding of people’s needs and how to record and document care activity. The provider’s systems and processes supported effective monitoring of people’s health and well-being.

People told us they were fond of their care staff and relatives felt like they were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff promoted individuality through personalised care, however, the providers systems and processes did not always ensure independence, choice and control. Staff told us they were comfortable in their place of work and felt their wellbeing and workplace enablement was supported by the provider.

People received care that was personalised to their needs; however, the providers systems and processes were not always effective at ensuring continuity of care. The providers complaints and quality monitoring systems enabled people, relatives and staff to provide feedback. Staff and leaders told us care was provided in a timely way that promoted equality and people’s rights. The providers systems and processes supported the involvement of people in planning and delivering care.

Quality assurance systems and oversight processes were not always effective. The provider required some guidance to ensure finance management and mental capacity assessment processes were safe and effective. Staff spoke positively about leaders and reported the service culture to be fair and equitable. The provider's systems and processes supported freedom to speak up.