Background to this inspection
Updated
6 September 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.
This inspection took place on 18, 20 and 28 July 2017 and was announced.
The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in to assist us. North Tyneside Homecare Associates is an established service which had previously registered at a different location. This is a first inspection of a newly registered service.
The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses a service for older people. During the inspection the inspector visited the provider’s head office to look at records and speak with staff. After the inspection the inspector visited some people who used the service to speak with them and telephoned staff who were employed by the agency. An expert by experience carried out telephone interviews with some people who used the service and some relatives.
Before the inspection, we had received a completed Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We contacted commissioners from the local authorities who contracted people’s care. We spoke with the local safeguarding teams.
We spoke on the telephone with 12 people who used the service and four relatives. We also visited two people in their own homes to obtain their views on the care and support they received. We interviewed three staff members, the service manager and the manager for the service.
We reviewed a range of documents and records including, five care records for people who used the service, five records of staff employed by the agency, complaints records, accidents and incident records. We also looked at records of staff meetings and a range of other quality audits and management records.
Updated
6 September 2017
This inspection took place on 18, 20 and 28 July 2017 and was announced.
The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in to assist us. North Tyneside Homecare Associates is an established service which had previously registered at a different location. This is a first inspection of a newly registered service.
North Tyneside Homecare Associates is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people in their own home.
A manager was in place and they had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives told us the service kept them safe. They trusted the workers who supported them. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse. People’s medicines were managed safely. The provider and manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough staff were deployed to support people safely. The provider’s recruitment process minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people's care needs.
Staff were aware of people's nutritional needs and made sure they were supported with eating and drinking where necessary. People received their medicines in a safe way. People's health needs were identified and staff worked with other health care professionals to ensure these were addressed.
People praised the kind and caring approach of staff. Staff were respectful and explained clearly how people's privacy and dignity were maintained. Staff understood the needs of people and care plans were person centred. People and their relatives spoke positively about the care provided.
A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain, although most people said they had not needed to. Where a complaint had been received it had been satisfactorily resolved.
Staff said the manager and management team were supportive and approachable. Communication was effective, ensuring people, their relatives and other relevant agencies were kept up to date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service.
People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.