MH Quality Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Our rating for this key question is good. The provider had developed robust governance and quality assurance systems and processes, designed to enable them to monitor the quality and safety of people’s care on an ongoing basis and take steps to drive improvement and share learning across the staff team. Staff and management understood what was expected of them in their respective roles.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff were able to tell us about how their role positively impacted people’s lives and demonstrated clear commitment to people’s continued wellbeing. Staff spoke about the overall vision and mission of the service, including the commitment to safeguarding people from any form of harm or abuse. The registered manager told us that one of the key values of the service was to provide an excellent standard of care. They told us that they were limiting how many care packages they accepted in order to strengthen staff’s knowledge of people’s individual needs and preferences, and ensure people were safe and well cared for.

The provider’s systems and processes were designed to help them achieve their shared vision for the service and to establish a positive culture. This included a policy on workforce diversity to better reflect the communities served by the service. We saw this in action in the recruitment process, such as recruiting people with specific language skills.

Our conversations with the registered manager demonstrated they had the experience, capacity and capability to ensure that the organisational vision could be delivered and risks were well managed. Staff spoke highly of the care and compassion the registered manager showed towards them. Staff, people and their relatives told us that the registered manager was always easy to reach should they have any questions or concerns.

Processes were in place to promote a shared vision and positive culture within the service. This included good communication between staff and management, ensuring any challenges to people’s care were quickly understood and addressed, and the completion of regular audits and checks to ensure the service was delivering on its overall aims.

Although staff were not aware of the phrase ‘freedom to speak up’, they were aware of the service’s ‘whistleblowing’ policy. They understand that they had a duty to speak up when they thought there may be risks to people or others including staff and families. They were able to give us examples of who they would contact in which circumstances, such as contacting the local authority should the concerns be about management.

Staff received regular supervision and ‘spot checks’. Supervision meetings included the opportunity for staff to talk about issues outside of work or any concerns they had regarding their work, the environment at work or any colleagues.

Staff felt the culture in the service was fair and inclusive, and they were satisfied with the support from the registered manager. They demonstrated they understood bullying and harassment and knew who to report concerns to. Staff have told us that the registered manager was always flexible when they had personal needs or circumstances, such as childcare issues. The registered manager demonstrated they understood how to support staff in line with the principles of equality and diversity.

The provider’s systems, processes and policies were designed to promote workforce equality and diversity. There was no evidence of any complaints regarding discrimination within the workplace.

The management team were clear about what their roles were and how they were an integral part of the support experience for people. Staff understood how to protect people and were given enough training and support to create a person-centred service that took into account people’s different needs.

Audits were regularly completed in different areas of support, such as medication and manual handling, and spot checks were conducted to ensure that support was consistent and safe. We saw examples of how audits were used to improve the quality of the service such as introducing new training and support for staff as additional needs were found. From example, diabetes training for staff was identified as part of a medicines audit and this was immediately implemented into the support and care plans.

However, detailed separate risk assessments were not completed. The registered manager showed us that support plans were used to highlight risks as they felt that this was a good way for staff to follow up on individuals’ risks and needs. We suggested that staff may find it difficult to search through large support plans to find individual risks quickly should they be new to the person and unaware of such areas such as diabetes or moving and handling. The registered manager agreed that it may take up additional time for staff and, during the assessment, all risk assessments were transferred to additional risk assessment plans. These were of a good quality and included information from support plans.

People did not provide any feedback on the extent to which the service collaborated with partner organisations. Therefore, we have scored this evidence category as a 3.

Staff, relatives and people told us that the Registered Manager worked collaboratively with other professionals, as required, to ensure that risks were managed and that care is provided at the level required. Staff explained the Registered Manager attended some care calls to discuss people’s individual needs and the quality of the care as well as any concerns people had. This feedback was used to make improvements in the service. The Registered Manager understood the need to make referrals to external agencies where required.

We did not gather evidence from the partner organisations which interacted with the service as part of this assessment.

Surveys were conducted annually with people and their relatives, inviting their feedback on the care and support provided. In addition to this, the registered manager maintained contact with people and their relatives to understand their experiences of the care delivered and make improvements in the service.

The registered manager demonstrated they understood how to ensure learning was shared across the staff team and how they assessed and sought to improve the quality of the service. Staff explained how the registered manager requested their input in care planning and their opinion on the service’s service improvement plan.

The registered manager maintained a service improvement plan which was updated regularly in response to any new improvement initiatives or quality concerns. This document was used by the registered manager to plan and implement targeted timelines for actions in areas that may be lacking, as part of continuous improvement of the service.