• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: My Homecare (Durham)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Viewpoint, Consett Business Park, Villa Real, Consett, County Durham, DH8 6BP (01207) 693977

Provided and run by:
My Homecare Assistance Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

7 February 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 7, 8 and 13 February 2017 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intended visit to ensure someone would be available in the office to meet us.

The service was last inspected on 16 and 19 November 2015, at which time the service was in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At the inspection of November 2015 we identified the following breaches:

Regulation 17 (good governance)

Regulation 18 (staffing)

Regulation 19 (fit and proper persons employed)

During our inspection of 11 and 16 November 2015 we found staff were providing care for people without appropriate training, such as infection control and basic food hygiene. We also found staff had not received a thorough induction. At this inspection we found staff had received appropriate training to deliver care to people, and had undertaken an induction as described in company literature. The service was therefore no longer in breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

During our inspection of 11 and 16 November 2015 we also found the provider failed to adhere to its own recruitment, induction and supervision policies in order to ensure employees were fit and proper persons. We found during this inspection that staff supervisions had taken place, that pre-employment checks occurred consistently and that gaps in employment were explored by the registered manager. This meant the service was no longer in breach of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Whilst we found improvements had been made in relation to ensuring care records were accurate, complete and contemporaneous, we found the provider had not implemented significant improvements to their quality assurance systems and they remained in breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, good governance.

My Homecare (Durham) is a domiciliary care provider based in Durham providing personal care and support to people in their own homes. There were 35 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed at appropriate times in order to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff underwent pre-employment checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and were clear about their safeguarding responsibilities. Other pre-employment checks were in place, including requests for references, ID checks and checks of gaps in employment. We saw that staff recruitment file audits had not taken place, despite being outlined as an action to be taken by the registered provider in an action plan sent to CQC after the previous inspection of November 2015.

We found that risks were managed and mitigated through pre-assessment and ongoing assessment. People using the service told us they felt safe and we saw that the service operated an out-of-hours phone line in case of unforeseen circumstances.

We saw that no medicines errors had been made on the Medication Administration Records (MAR) we viewed and medicines administration training was in place. Medicines audits were not consistent in their content or how regularly they occurred, meaning the registered manager would not be able to identify trends or patterns regarding medicines administration.

New staff received an induction which included introductions to safeguarding, dementia awareness, diabetes awareness, health and safety, fire safety, infection control and food hygiene. Additional mandatory training included safeguarding refreshers, dementia awareness, medicines management and infection control.

Staff files reviewed contained completed supervision documentation and staff we spoke with confirmed they received ad hoc and more formal support. We saw staff meetings happened intermittently. Auditing of staff supervisions and meetings had not taken place.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and preferences by staff who understood their preferences. People consistently told us staff helped them to choose their preferred meals and drinks.

People told us staff were on time, considerate and helpful. External professionals also told us that they considered the care provided to be to a good standard and staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s individualities.

People contributed to their own care planning and were involved in reviews, with family members similarly involved. Where people’s needs changed, external professionals told us that staff worked with them to identify solutions and to ensure people’s needs could be met. People told us the service was accommodating to changes to visit times.

Personal sensitive information was stored securely and spot checks of staff undertaken checked to ensure they carried their identification badge with them.

People’s hobbies and interests were supported and encouraged through care plans that were person-centred to a degree. The registered manager agreed to improve the content of care plans to include more about people’s life histories, likes and dislikes, so that new staff would have a better idea of a person before visiting.

People we spoke with and staff confirmed they were introduced to their care worker in advance, and continuity of care was a positive theme from all people and relatives we spoke with.

The service had a complaints policy in place. People who used the service were made aware of the complaints procedure and told us they knew how to complain and who to, should the need arise. Complaints were responded to individually although auditing of complaints had ceased in July 2016, with the last Quality Assurance meeting between the registered manager and the business development manager.

People who used the service and staff told us the registered manager was approachable and supportive.

The service was in breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can read more about the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

16 and 19 November 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 16 and 19 November 2015 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intended visit to ensure someone would be available in the office to meet us.

The service was last inspected on 11 March 2015, at which time there was insufficient evidence to rate the service. At this inspection on 11 March 2015 it was established that the provider had not protected people against the risks of being cared for by unsuitable staff. This was a breach of Regulation 21 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. It was also established that the provider had not protected people against the risk of unsafe care relating to medicines. This was a breach of Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We found the service had addressed these issues when we inspected the service on 11 and 16 November 2015.

At the inspection on 11 March 2015 we also found the provider failed to have in place accurate, contemporaneous and secure records. This was a breach of Regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We found the service had rectified the issue we had raised with them during the inspection of 11 March 2015 but that there were new breaches of this regulation during the inspection of 11 and 16 November 2015. This was with regard to the accuracy of care records of people who used the service.

At the inspection on 11 March 2015 we also found the provider failed to protect people against the risk of having staff in place who has not received appropriate training and professional development. This was a breach of Regulation 23 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

During our inspection of 11 and 16 November we found that staff had received recent training in medicines administration and moving and handling. We also found they had received training specific to the needs of people’s particular nutritional needs. We found however staff continued to provide care for people without appropriate training, such as infection control and basic food hygiene. This was a breach Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We also found the provider failed to adhere to its own recruitment, induction and supervision policies in order to ensure employees were fit and proper persons. This was a breach of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Good Companions (Durham) is a domiciliary care provider based in Durham providing personal care and support to people in their own homes. There were 23 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

We saw that adequate numbers of staff were on duty to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff underwent pre-employment checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and, when we spoke with them, they were clear about their safeguarding responsibilities. We saw other pre-employment checks were not carried out consistently and gaps in prospective employees’ employment were not investigated. We saw that staff recruitment file audits had not taken place, despite being outlined as an action to be taken by the provider in a letter to CQC dated 24 June 2015.

We found that risks were managed and mitigated through pre-assessment and ongoing assessment. People using the service told us they felt safe and we saw that the service operated an out-of-hours phone line in case of unforeseen circumstances.

We saw that no medicines errors had been made on the Medication Administration Records (MAR) and recent medicines administration training had been implemented.

We found that staff had not received an induction as per company literature such as the Staff Handbook and Service User Guide and that appropriate training had not been provided prior to new staff caring for people.

People told us that that consent was sought both at the initial care planning stage and when care staff visited people who used the service.

Staff told us that staff supervisions and ad hoc support occurred regularly, although the documentation pertaining to these were not up to date or in line with company policy. We saw staff meetings happened regularly and that staff felt supported to perform their role.

People told us staff were caring, compassionate and warm in their care. External professionals also told us that they considered the care provided to be compassionate.

We saw that people were encouraged and supported to contribute to their own care planning and review, with family members similarly involved.

We saw that personal sensitive information was stored securely and care plans were reviewed regularly. Where people’s needs changed, these reviews were brought forward and care provision amended accordingly. People told us the service was accommodating to their changing needs and preferences and we saw multi-agency involvement in reviews.

People’s hobbies and interests were supported and encouraged through care plans that were person-centred.

The service had a complaints policy in place. People who used the service were made aware of the complaints procedure and told us they knew how to complain and who to, should the need arise.

The majority of people who used the service told us the registered manager was approachable and we found them to have a good knowledge of people who used the service.

The service had failed to improve in a number of areas previously brought to its attention following the last CQC inspection of 11 March 2015, notably staff training, induction and recruitment processes. You can read more about the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

11, 18 March , 15 and 20 April 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 11 and 18 March 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we were planning to visit. Visits and telephone calls to people who used the service were also carried out between 17 March and 20 April 2015.

Good Companions (Durham) Ltd was first registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 January 2015. There have been no previous inspections.

The service is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service had started to provide services to people and there were six people using the service.

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. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in place.

We found the provider was using staff to deliver people’s care without the appropriate employment checks in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We found staff were giving people their medicines without having Medication Administration Records which detailed the names and the amount of prescribed medicines to be given to people as well as staff signatures which said who had given people their medicines.

People told us they were happy with the care provided to them.

We found staff did not have in place induction training in line with the provider’s policy. The provider also did not have in place training for staff to ensure they could meet people’s needs.

People told us they had been given a copy of the provider’s service user guide and knew how to contact the office if they wanted to make a complaint or an enquiry.

We saw the provider had in place care plans for people which were person centred. Where the provider had identified potential risks to people, we saw there were risk assessments in place and actions were recorded to mitigate those risks.

We were not able to provide a rating for this service as it had not operated for a sufficient length of time to determine a rating. However we found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.