Background to this inspection
Updated
13 December 2016
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.
This inspection took place on 9 and 10 November 2016 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice because the location provides personal care for people who live in their own homes. We needed to make sure the registered manager was available to meet us. We asked them to make arrangements for us to visit people in their own homes. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. We were also supported by an ‘expert by experience’ who contacted people and/or their relatives by telephone to seek their views on the service. 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 this inspection we asked the provider to complete a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We also looked at other information we had received about the service since the last inspection.
During the inspection we met with the registered manager and seven members of staff. We visited three people in their homes and we spoke with two people who use the service on the telephone. We spoke with, or met, seven relatives. We also contacted four health and social care professionals to seek their views on the service.
During the inspection we looked at a range of records the provider is required to maintain. These included service user support plans, medicine administration records, staff rotas, staff recruitment files, staff training records, meal planning records, and quality monitoring records. We also looked at records of accidents, incidents, compliments and complaints and safeguarding investigations.
Updated
13 December 2016
This inspection took place on 9 and 10 November 2016 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice because we wanted to meet the registered manager and needed to be certain they would be available during the inspection. This also gave the registered manager sufficient time to ask some people if they would be willing for us to visit and speak with them in their homes. The service was previously inspected on 20 June 2014 when we found the service was fully compliant with all regulations covered in the inspection. During this inspection we found no breaches of regulations and we found people received a good service.
Newcross Healthcare Solutions (Exeter) provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in the Exeter and East Devon areas. The agency provided three main areas of care – complex care, enabling care, and a sitting service. At the time of this inspection they provided care and support to approximately 34 people.
There was a registered manager 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 in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they felt safe and said they had never experienced any issues or concerns about abuse or harm. Staff had received training and information on how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse and they were confident any concerns would be acted on promptly. A relative said, “If there are any issues, Newcross are on it instantly and I’m informed even if they are not worried. They keep me in the loop”. The provider had a robust recruitment process which minimised the risks of abuse to people. Staff had received training and guidance to make sure they knew how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse.
People received reliable and consistent support from staff who were well trained, with the knowledge and skills to meet each person's health and personal care needs safely and effectively.
Staff were well supported. Staff told us they received regular supervision and support, either in the agency office or by telephone. They also received regular monitoring checks by a senior member of staff while they were working directly with people. A member of staff said “They do come and sign you off for competency.”
Each person had their needs assessed by a team leader or a member of the management team before the service began. Care plans were detailed, well laid-out, and easy to read. The plans covered all aspects of the person’s needs, their support network, likes, dislikes, and usual routines. Staff told us the care plans provided them with all the information they needed about each person’s care needs. One person said, “They come and sit down with me and discuss my care. They come and see me to check I’m ok. They check on me. They’re very good like that. I have a copy of the care plan.”
People received their medicines safely from staff who were trained to carry out the task. Medication administration records (MAR) were drawn up by a qualified nurse. The records we looked at were completed accurately and there were no unexplained gaps. Staff monitored people’s health and liaised closely with relevant professionals to make sure people’s healthcare needs were met.
People who used the service, their relatives and people closely involved in their care were involved and consulted. People were always asked for their consent before staff assisted them with any tasks. Staff respected people’s privacy and people were treated with respect and dignity. The agency sought to match care staff to the people who used the service, for example by matching staff with similar interests to the person.
The service was well led. The provider had an effective quality monitoring system to ensure standards of service were maintained and improved. People were involved and consulted about all aspects of the service.