Date of assessment: 29 August 2025 – 14 October 2025. The reason for this assessment was due to concerns we received about the service. The quality of the service has declined since our previous inspection. The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to recruitment procedures and the governance of the service. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. Effective quality assurance processes were not in place to support continuous learning. Omissions were found in some daily monitoring charts, care plans and risk assessments. However, the provider and new manager were responsive to feedback. They were committed to learning from the findings of the assessment and from their own recent reviews of the quality of the service. The provider did not have a fully robust recruitment process in place to ensure that all required information about potential employees was obtained. Staff were not always provided with full information about people’s care and treatment, including information provided by other professionals. Risk assessments were not always person-centred. We found no impact and the service was in the process of reviewing and updating all care plans and risk assessments. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Environmental risk assessments were completed. The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Medicines were generally managed safely, however, time critical medicines were not always administered due to the timings of care calls. Staff had received up to date training in best practice methods of support and had their competencies checked. The provider valued diversity within the workforce and staff development. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-10638638364.
Minster Homecare's first CQC inspection rated the service Good overall and across all five key questions, with effective risk, medicines and safeguarding systems and a person-centred, well-led culture. People and relatives praised the caring, well-trained staff and the approachable registered manager.
Strengths
· Risks to people's health, safety and well-being were effectively managed and care plans contained detailed risk assessments.
· Medicines were safely administered and managed, with regular medicine audits and staff competence checks.
· Safe recruitment procedures were followed and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
· Staff received regular training, supervision and incentives, and felt well supported.
· Effective infection prevention and control systems were in place.
Quality-Statement breakdown (25)
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementGood
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Using medicines safelyGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawGood
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceGood
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietGood
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careGood
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careGood
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityGood
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceGood
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesGood
responsive: Supporting people to develop and maintain relationships to avoid social isolationGood
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsGood
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsGood
responsive: End of life care and supportGood
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsGood
well-led: How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candourGood
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringGood
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffGood
well-led: Continuous learning and improving careGood