# Leymar Healthcare

*Operated by Leymar Ltd.*

Leymar Healthcare is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Sutton-in-ashfield.

## CQC Ratings

| Key question | Rating |
| --- | --- |
| Overall | Good |
| Safe | Good |
| Effective | Good |
| Caring | Good |
| Responsive | Good |
| Well-led | Good |

Rating published: 28/09/2022

## Practical info

- Postcode: NG17 3FW
- Registered manager: Munene, Mirungu
- Local authority: Nottinghamshire
- Region: East Midlands
- City: Sutton-in-ashfield
- Last CQC check: 28/Sep/2022 - 00:00

## Inspection findings

### Other

- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff felt well supported and confident in approaching management at any time.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: Monthly audits were completed by the management team to identify issues and drive improvements.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: The registered manager fostered an open, honest culture and fulfilled duty of candour responsibilities.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: People and relatives were involved in care planning and felt treated with dignity and respect.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: Incidents were recorded, investigated and used as learning opportunities with new processes implemented.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: Infection prevention control measures were in place including PPE use and up-to-date infection control policy.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: Risks were assessed, managed and monitored including falls, mobilising and environmental risks.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: Safeguarding concerns were investigated and immediate action taken to reduce risk of reoccurrence.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff were recruited safely with robust DBS checks and references in place.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: People received their medicines as prescribed and staff had medicine administration training and competency assessments.
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- **staffing_levels** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: other staff we spoke with told us, they did not always have enough travel time between calls. The registered manager acknowledged recruitment continued to be difficult
  - Published: 2022-09-28
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff were supplied with sufficient PPE and followed COVID-19 guidelines.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- Finding
  - Evidence: The provider worked alongside GPs, district nurses and other healthcare professionals.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff received regular supervision and felt supported by management.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- Finding
  - Evidence: People told us they felt safe with staff and reported timekeeping was good.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- Finding
  - Evidence: Quality monitoring systems including spot checks and staff supervision were in place.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- Finding
  - Evidence: Systems were in place to learn lessons from incidents, with safeguarding referrals reported appropriately to local safeguarding teams.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff received training on medication administration, infection control, and safeguarding, updated yearly.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff were recruited safely with safe recruitment checks in place.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- **infection_control** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: the provider had an infection control policy in place although this had not been updated to reflect the current covid-19 pandemic
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- **record_keeping** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: not all known risks were recorded to identify how staff should support the person effectively
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- **governance** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: The registered manager was unavailable on the day of the inspection...they were in the process of submitting a new application to be the registered manager.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- **safeguarding** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: Staff were unable to tell us how they would raise concerns outside the provider, we advised during the inspection to have local safeguarding details on display
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- **care_planning** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: people with the condition of diabetes. There was no risk assessment if the person was to have high or low blood sugars.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- **care_planning** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: two different people had identical home risk assessments in place. This places people at risk; risk assessments should be person centred
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- **medication_management** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: Staff were not always provided with instructions on how and where to apply prescribed creams, this puts people at risk of creams being applied incorrectly.
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- **medication_management** _(critical)_
  - Evidence: the service had started filling multi-compartment aids for service users during the covid-19 pandemic...this puts people at risk of receiving incorrect medication
  - Published: 2021-02-03
- Finding
  - Evidence: Annual quality surveys showed 100% positive responses from people using the service in 2014
  - Published: 2021-01-27
- Finding
  - Evidence: Effective complaints procedure in place with contact details accessible via website; people felt confident raising concerns
  - Published: 2021-01-27
- Finding
  - Evidence: Open and honest leadership culture with registered provider maintaining high visibility through regular home visits and unannounced spot checks
  - Published: 2021-01-27

## Source

Data published by the [Care Quality Commission](https://www.cqc.org.uk/) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Canonical page: https://homecarecompass.co.uk/agency/1-946398642

HomeCare Compass is an independent guide and is not affiliated with the CQC.