Medicare Link Limited

“This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. As a result, we undertook a comprehensive assessment, we looked at 33 quality statements.”

“Our assessment was announced. This means we gave the service 48 hours' notice prior to our visit taking place. This was because we wanted to make sure someone would be available to support us with the inspection. We carried out the assessment by remote.”

“The inspection team consisted of 2 inspectors.”

“At the time of the assessment, there were 10 people receiving support with personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care, this includes support with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.”

“We spoke with the assistant manager, 8 staff members, 3 people using the service and 1 relative.”

“Upon identifying areas for improvement, we saw that the provider took appropriate steps to help improve the service. For an example, risk assessment was reviewed on a regular basis or when staff identified concerns. This ensured that documentation was more robust and reflective to people changes of support needs associated with new risks.”

“The staff understood their legal responsibility about following the mental capacity framework.”

“The provider had effective systems to monitor incidents and facilitate learning from them. Staff consistently understood and adhered to safeguarding procedures, ensuring the safety and wellbeing of people under their care. Medicines management was handled appropriately, infection risks were controlled, and reliable support was provided by skilled personnel.”

“People’s needs were thoroughly assessed and regularly reviewed, with individuals actively involved in their own care planning. The use of efficient electronic systems helped maintain consistency in care delivery. Staff collaborated well, maintaining positive communication with healthcare professionals, which supported healthier living for people and ensured that referrals were made in a timely manner.”

“Staff were familiar with the people they supported, treating everyone as an individual and encouraging independence. They responded promptly to needs and fostered a positive culture through recognition and reward initiatives, which promoted staff wellbeing and contributed to the delivery of person-centred care.”

“Care was personalised and adapted swiftly to changing needs, underpinned by consistent staffing and clear communication with both people and their relatives. Individuals felt listened to and received information in a manner that suited them. Staff ensured equitable access to support, facilitated community connections, and assisted with future planning, including dignified end-of-life care.”

“The service benefited from approachable and inclusive leadership, fostering a culture of respect, openness, and ongoing improvement. Effective governance systems provided oversight of quality, empowering staff to speak up, develop their skills, and work collaboratively. Feedback from people, relatives, and professionals was used constructively, and the provider showed evidence of ongoing improvement, supported by stable staffing and clear processes.”