CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at M.C.A. Care Homes
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, the home was clean and safety checks were completed. There were enough staff, and recruitment checks were completed, but staff competency checks for administering medicines had not yet been done.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed before they used the home. Staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, healthcare, oral hygiene and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Relatives described kind, friendly care and good relationships with staff. People were supported to make choices, maintain dignity and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised, including communication needs and support when people were anxious or distressed. People were supported with activities, family contact and community access.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found committed leadership, positive staff morale and regular audits. Relatives said the manager was open, approachable and responsive to concerns.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with medicines checks still to be completed.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector. They spoke with staff and relatives, observed brief interactions, and reviewed care plans, recruitment files, training records and management checks. The person using the service was out for most of the visit and could not give feedback because of their cognitive impairment.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed care plans, safe recruitment, good support with choices and independence, and positive feedback from relatives.
There were no medicines in use during the visit. However, staff competency checks for giving medicines had not been completed, and the manager said this would be done before medicines were next given. The home was also not supporting anyone at the end of their life during the inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff clear information about people's needs, communication and preferences. Staff used this information to provide person-centred support.
“People's care plans were detailed and contained information for staff to enable them to support people in a person-centred way.” from the report
Kind relationships
Relatives spoke positively about the care and said people were happy to attend. Staff worked to build trusting relationships and knew people's likes and needs.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions about daily routines, food and activities. Staff also helped people learn skills and become more independent.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Good leadership
The home had regular quality checks and an open culture where people, relatives and staff could raise concerns.
“A range of audits were regularly carried out to check the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Clean and safe setting
Inspectors found the home clean, tidy and well maintained. Relevant checks had been completed for areas such as fire, gas, water and electricity.
“The service was clean, tidy and fresh smelling.” from the report
Medicines competency checks
needs fixingStaff had medicines training, but the home had not checked their practical competency to administer medicines. The manager said this would be completed before medicines were next administered.
“We saw that staff did not have their competencies to administer medicines assessed” from the report
End of life planning
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. The manager said they would review how end of life planning should be included in care plans.
“The registered manager told us they would review how they would look at including end of life care planning into the care planning and review process.” from the report
- 01Have all staff who may give medicines now had their practical competency assessed?
- 02What arrangements are in place for recording and managing medicines during respite stays?
- 03How would you involve our relative and family in updating their care plan and daily routines?
- 04How do you support people to build independence and develop new life skills?
- 05How would you create and review an end of life care plan if this became necessary?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the premises and care provided both looked at; the person using the service was out for most of the visit and could not provide feedback. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2017
M.C.A. Care Homes was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines checks and specialist training needed strengthening.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 25 April 2017. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager and provider. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files and other records.
The home supported two people with learning disabilities, although it could support up to three. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity and supported by caring staff. Care plans were personalised, activities took place and people could access healthcare.
The home remained rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found some gaps, including no medicines audits or staff medicines competency checks at the time of the visit. The manager later sent evidence that regular audits and specialist learning disability and autism training had been arranged.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, routines, health needs and the support they required. Staff knew the people they supported well.
“Care plans were individual and personalised according to each person's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Staff protected privacy, dignity and human rights.
“People were treated in a respectful and dignified manner by staff who understood the need to protect people's human rights.” from the report
Good response to distress
Staff adapted their support when a person became agitated. Taking the person outside helped them calm down.
“Upon returning we observed the person had calmed down and was happy as a result of going outside.” from the report
Safety arrangements
Risk assessments covered individual risks and explained how staff should reduce them. Fire, gas and electrical safety checks had been completed.
“Risks had been identified and assessed that provided information on how to mitigate risks to keep people safe.” from the report
Activities and healthcare
People took part in activities and were supported to attend healthcare appointments and routine monitoring.
“There was a weekly activities schedule and pictures showed people participated in a number of activities such as shopping and gardening.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingMedicines records were accurate and medicines were stored securely, but staff had not had competency checks and the home was not carrying out medicines audits at the visit. The manager later sent evidence that regular audits would be introduced.
“Records showed that staff had not been competency assessed to check their understanding in medicines and audits in medicines was not being carried out to ensure medicines were being managed safely at all times.” from the report
Specialist staff training
needs fixingStaff had not yet received training in learning disabilities and autism, despite supporting people with these needs. Training had been booked after the inspection.
“Records showed training had not been provided in learning disabilities and autism.” from the report
Independence records
minorThe report said care records did not explain how people could develop greater independence, for example with bathing. Inspectors observed that people were independent in some ways and staff encouraged them.
“The provider should note that records did not show how people could be developed to become independent for example with personal care such as with bathing.” from the report
- 01How often are medicines audits now completed, and can you show us the latest audit?
- 02How are staff checked as competent to manage medicines safely?
- 03Have all staff completed the training in learning disabilities and autism that was booked after the inspection?
- 04How do you record and support each person's progress towards greater independence, including with personal care?
- 05How are people involved in choosing activities, meals and their daily routines?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of M.C.A. Care Homes
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 February 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.