CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at MK Supported Housing Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing arrangements, recruitment checks, medicines systems and infection control were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems, audits, records and feedback arrangements were effective. Staff felt supported, and issues were reviewed and acted on.
What inspectors found, September 2020
MK Supported Housing Limited is rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a focused inspection on 18 and 21 August 2020. One inspector spoke with people using the service, staff, managers and relatives. Records about care, medicines, staff recruitment and management were also checked.
The home was found to be safe and well-led. Staff understood safeguarding and risk plans. Staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely, and infection control measures were in place. The home was clean, and relatives said people were safe and well supported.
The previous inspection rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches relating to safe care and treatment and good governance. Inspectors found that improvements had been made, and the home was no longer in breach. The overall rating changed to Good, but the other three areas were not assessed during this visit.
Safe support
People were protected by risk assessments and staff who understood safeguarding. Relatives also said people were safe.
“People received safe care and felt safe within the service.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Medicines were stored and given safely, with accurate records. The home was clean and staff used protective equipment appropriately during the Covid 19 pandemic.
“Medicines were stored and administered safely, and staff were trained to support people effectively.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had improved its quality checks since the previous inspection. Audits were used to find and address problems.
“Audits of the service were detailed and any issues found were addressed promptly.” from the report
Independence and choice
Support focused on people's choices, inclusion and developing their independence. Staff involved people in decisions as much as they could.
“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
Training was still developing
minorThe report says training was continuing to develop in an area linked to people's ongoing needs. Families may want to ask what training has since been completed.
“Staff and managers understood the ongoing needs of people, and were continuing to develop training within this area, to ensure peoples' needs were met.” from the report
- 01The report says the manager was going through the CQC registration process. Has that process been completed?
- 02What training has been completed since the inspection to meet people's ongoing needs?
- 03How do you check that risk assessments remain up to date, including plans for behaviour that may challenge?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff remain consistent and familiar to the people living here?
- 05How have infection control arrangements changed since the Covid 19 inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2020 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, October 2019
MK Supported Housing Limited is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but safety and management systems were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 September 2019. One inspector spoke with a person using the service, a relative, staff, a social care professional, the manager and a director. Records about care, medicines, training, safeguarding, complaints and quality checks were also examined.
The home provided care and support to two people. Inspectors found staff were kind, respectful and knew people well. People had choice, were supported to become more independent, and took part in activities and social opportunities. The home was clean and well maintained, with enough staff on duty.
However, safety arrangements were not reliable. Risk plans for distressed behaviour were not detailed enough, some medicines were not stored or recorded correctly, and food and fridge temperatures were not always managed safely. Audits had failed to identify or act on some of these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive were Good. The home remained Requires Improvement after the previous inspection and had been rated this way for two consecutive inspections.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as individuals and staff protected their privacy and dignity. Staff had time to provide reassurance and emotional support.
“People were treated as individuals and were valued and respected.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, interests and causes of anxiety. Staff supported people to make choices and live their lives as they wished.
“People received their support from dedicated teams of staff who knew them well and supported them to live their life as they chose.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in work, social activities and new experiences. Staff helped them develop skills and become more independent.
“People's independence was promoted, and staff worked with them to enable them to achieve their goals.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and support people to be as active as they wanted.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff at the service to support people safely.” from the report
Behaviour risk plans
seriousStaff did not have enough guidance about what to do if distress escalated. The provider's no-physical-intervention policy did not protect people and staff when behaviour posed a risk of harm.
“Staff had not been provided with sufficient guidance about what they should do if people's behaviour escalated.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousSome medicines were not stored in line with legal requirements. Medicines records were not always complete, including directions for creams and details about how medicines should be given.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) charts were not always fully completed.” from the report
Food safety
seriousSome opened food was not labelled with cooking or opening dates and use-by dates. Fridge temperatures were sometimes outside the safe range, with no recorded action.
“People were at risk of infection as food was not always safely stored.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousQuality checks did not identify several problems, and known electrical safety concerns were not dealt with quickly enough. This was the second inspection where governance was found to be inadequate.
“There was a lack of effective oversight and governance in place to enable the provider and registered manager to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Staff induction
needs fixingNew staff received induction and shadowing, but the package did not follow the Care Certificate principles. The manager agreed to implement this.
“However, the induction package did not follow the principles of the Care Certificate.” from the report
- 01What specific risk plans and staff training are now in place for behaviour that may put the person or others at risk?
- 02How are medicines now stored, recorded and checked, including prescribed creams?
- 03How are fridge temperatures and food labels checked each day, and what happens when a reading is outside the safe range?
- 04What changes have been made to the quality audits so that problems are identified and dealt with quickly?
- 05Has the Care Certificate been introduced for staff who are new to care, and how is their competence checked?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, premises and management of the home, covering all five CQC questions and including records for both people using the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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.
Every inspection of MK Supported Housing Limited
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at MK Supported Housing Limited →
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at MK Supported Housing Limited →
- September 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 May 2016.
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 Milton Keynes
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. 90 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.