Havant care service told it must improve by watchdog

A CARE service in Havant has been told it must improve following an inspection.

Wednesday, 15th June 2016, 6:31 am
Updated Thursday, 25th August 2016, 5:06 pm
A Havant care company has been told to improve its standards Picture posed by models

The Care Quality Commission has said MiHomecare ‘requires improvement’ on the five major issues it inspects, including having a safe and well-led service.

Inspectors visited in April when there were 300 people receiving care from the West Street-based company, which provides home assistance to people of all ages, including people with dementia and learning disabilities.

Inspectors highlighted the fact that some home visits were late or missed altogether.

Sign up to our public interest bulletins - get the latest news on the Coronavirus

Sign up to our public interest bulletins - get the latest news on the Coronavirus

The report states: ‘At the time of the inspection some people told us staff were still arriving late to their care calls and had experienced missed visits.

‘One person told us they did not receive a visit on Sunday.

‘This meant this person did not receive support with personal care or meal preparation. Another person said care staff either arrived too early or too late and as a result they were unable to use the toilet when they needed to.

‘Records contained in the provider’s safeguarding folder evidenced missed visits continued to happen.’

Inspectors spoke to 35 people who used the service, as well as five care staff and a number of managers.

The report stated: ‘Risk assessments were completed, however they were not always accurate and identified risks were not included in people’s care plans.

‘People were at risk of not receiving their medicines safely.’

And it added: ‘People may be at risk of not having their views taken into consideration when care was being provided because people’s care plans did not describe what people were able to do for themselves and what care staff were required to support people with.’

However, the service was praised. Inspectors found that people felt safe, there was a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and clients were protected against potential abuse.

No-one from the company was available for comment.