Archived: Allied Healthcare - Newcastle

Updated 11 June 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 11, 12 and 13 February 2015, and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice to ensure the availability of the registered manager and records on our visit.

This inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and one pharmacy inspector. We were supported by two experts by experience, who carried out phone calls to people using the service and their relatives. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the notifications of significant events and any safeguarding issues. We contacted local authority commissioners of care services and safeguarding adults unit for their views on the service. We asked for and received information from the service in the form of a provider information return (PIR). A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

In the course of the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, two care co-ordinators, administrative staff and five care workers. We contacted 22 people using the service and five relatives by phone, with their permission, to ask their views. We attempted to arrange a number of visits to people in their own homes. One person, only, agreed to this and we visited them at their home.

After the inspection we asked the views of five people’s social workers to obtain their views about the service.

We examined the care records of 15 people who used the service, six staff recruitment and personnel files, staff training records and quality audits.

Updated 11 June 2015

This inspection took place on 11, 12 and 13 February 2015. It was announced.

The last inspection took place in July 2014. At that inspection we found the provider had breached two regulations: regulation 13 which related to the management of people’s medicines; and regulation 22 which related to staffing. We judged the former to have a moderate impact on people using the service; the latter to have a minor impact on people.

Allied Healthcare – Newcastle is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to approximately 430 people in their own homes in the Newcastle area.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection we found improvements had not been made since the last inspection regarding medicine management. We considered that the service was failing to protect people using the service against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. Clear and accurate records were not being kept of medicines administered by care workers. Gaps in the medicines administration records meant we could not be sure people were always given their prescribed medicines. Details of the strengths and dosages of some medicines were not recorded. Care plans and risk assessments did not support the safe handling of some people’s medicines.

This was a continuing breach of regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. This corresponds to regulation 12 (1)(2)(g) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This is being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.

Improvements were found in the numbers of care workers available to provide people with a safe and reliable service. Extra workers had been recruited and their deployment had been improved. This meant there had been a reduction in the number of missed calls and an increase in the reliability of the service.

The service had a robust recruitment program in place for ensuring only people suitable were employed to work with vulnerable people.

Systems were in place for the prevention and reporting of abuse. The registered manager responded appropriately to any allegations of abuse.

Staff were given the training they needed to meet people’s needs, and were given appropriate support, in terms of supervision and appraisal of their work. People told us their needs were met effectively, and that the reliability of the service had improved.

Feedback from the people who used the service was mainly very positive. They told us they were treated with kindness and care by their workers and said their privacy and dignity were respected.

The needs of people who used the service were assessed, with their involvement and with the help of family members and professionals. There was a clear focus on understanding what was important to the person, and their wishes and preferences about how their care should be given were recorded and acted upon. Care plans were in place to guide care workers on how the person’s needs were to be met.

All complaints, accidents and other incidents were recorded and analysed. Appropriate steps were taken to investigate such occurrences and action plans were drawn up and monitored to reduce the chances of the incident being repeated.

Care workers reported any changes to a person’s health or well-being to the office, so that these could be passed on promptly to other health or social care professionals for their action.

The service was able to demonstrate that it was committed to improving the quality of the care it offered to people. Systems were in place to monitor that quality, and the findings of audits were taken seriously and were used to develop the service further. The feedback we received from people using the service, their relatives, staff and professionals was that the service was steadily improving in its reliability, flexibility and person-centred care.