We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bromley Mind - Mindcare on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bromley Mind - Mindcare, you can give feedback on this service.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service mainly to older adults. Not everyone using Bromley Mind - Mindcare receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. Bromley Mind - Mindcare is a carers’ respite and sitting service which provides support and some personal care to people living with dementia within their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were approximately 83 people using the service.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There were safeguarding and whistle-blowing procedures in place and staff knew what actions to take to protect adults and children from harm. Any safeguarding concerns were reported appropriately to the local authority and CQC. There were robust recruitment checks in place before staff started work at the service. People told us that there were regular staff and there were enough of them to safely meet their needs. Risks to people were assessed, managed and reviewed regularly to ensure people’s needs were safely met. Where incidents and accidents occurred these were reviewed regularly to ensure that the risk of them re-occurring was reduced. Staff were knowledgeable about risks to people as care plans gave detailed guidance to them. Medicines were managed and administered safely and appropriately and audits conducted to ensure that medicines practice was safe. People were protected from the risk of infections and staff had received training in respect of infection control.
Assessments of people’s care and support needs were conducted to ensure that the care they received was suitable. Staff were competent and had received an appropriate induction before they started work and had regular training relevant to the needs of people that they supported. Staff also received regular supervision where any training needs or concerns could be discussed as well as an annual appraisal. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs, and staff were aware of any specific dietary requirements people may have. People were supported to access health and social care professionals when necessary. Staff were aware of the importance of seeking consent from people they supported and demonstrated good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There were arrangements in place to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People told us staff were caring and respectful when they provided care. People had been consulted about their care and support needs and were given appropriate information about the service such as how to make a complaint and the providers statement of purpose. People were supported to communicate their needs and information was available in a format that met their needs. People told us they received personalised care that met their needs. Care plans were detailed and had information about people and their preferences. People knew about the provider’s complaints procedure and said they felt comfortable raising concerns if necessary. There had been no formal complaints since our last inspection.
There were effective quality assurance systems in place to evaluate and monitor the quality of the service provided to people. The provider took into account the views of people through satisfaction surveys and other communication methods and made improvements where necessary. Staff said they enjoyed working at the service and they received good support from the manager and office staff. There was an out of hours on call system in operation that ensured management support and advice was always available. The service worked closely with external organisations to meet people's needs and to improve the quality of the service they provided.
Bromley Mind - Mindcare is a carers’ respite and sitting service which provides support and some personal care to people living with dementia within their own homes. The service is situated within the London borough of Bromley and provides services to people living within the borough. At the time of our inspection there were approximately 76 people using the service. There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At this inspection we made a recommendation to the provider on the safe management and administration of medicines. This was because medicine records were not always completed appropriately by staff in line with best practice. There were no systems in place to seek and assess people’s consent and capacity and to act in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when required. This required some improvement. Risk management required improvements as risk assessments did not provide staff with detailed guidance on managing or reducing highlighted risks. We will check on these issues at our next inspection of the service.
There were policies and procedures in place for safeguarding adults from abuse. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work and staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people using the service. There were suitable arrangements in place to manage foreseeable emergencies.
Staff received supervision, appraisals and training appropriate to their needs and the needs of people who they supported to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. There were processes in place to ensure staff new to the service were inducted into the service appropriately.
People’s nutritional needs and preferences were met and people told us they were treated with dignity and respect. People were provided with information about the service when they joined.
People told us the support they received was personalised, respected their wishes and met their needs. People’s support and care needs were identified, assessed and documented within their care plan. People’s needs were reviewed and monitored on a regular basis. People were provided with information on how to make a complaint and who to refer to if they were unhappy with the outcome.
Although the provider had procedures and systems in place to evaluate and monitor the quality of the service, we found that these were not always followed or were not effective in ensuring the quality of some aspects of care people received. People told us they thought the service was well run and staff told us they received good support that enabled them to do their jobs effectively. There were systems in place to carry out staff spot checks to ensure consistency and people were provided with opportunities to provide feedback about the service.
We found the provider had made the required improvements identified at our inspection on 04 February 2013. People's care and support needs had been reviewed and assessments, care plans and risk assessments had been updated. People's care was delivered in line with their care plans. We found staff had received supervision meetings and their performance had been observed. Staff also had received an appraisal. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and receive feedback from people. We found the provider had made improvements to the way in which records were maintained.
People were involved in planning their care and they were able to state their choices and preferences. People were treated with dignity and respect, and care staff promoted their independence. People's needs were assessed, however, some assessments were out of date and did not reflect people's current needs. In addition, specific care plans were not in place to provide support where it was needed, and some people's risk assessments required reviewing. Staff were adequately trained and were aware of their responsibilities to report concerns. Staff felt adequately supported through supervision and team meetings, however, we found some shortfalls with the frequency of supervisions and appraisals. The provider had adequate quality assurance systems in place. The provider's records sometimes increased the potential of people receiving unsafe or inappropriate care.