• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Grovewood House New House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

South Charlton, Alnwick, Northumberland, NE66 2NB (01665) 579217

Provided and run by:
Mr Ayman Mohammad Osama Bakr

All Inspections

6 November 2018

During a routine inspection

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2016. This inspection took place on 6 November 2018 and was announced. The service is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes throughout North Northumberland. Services were provided to adults with a wide range of health and social care needs. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people receiving a service.

Not everyone using Grovewood House New House received regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

Mr Ayman Mohammad Osama Bakr is registered with CQC as a sole individual. Therefore, there is no requirement to have a registered manager. 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. Mr Ayman Mohammad Osama Bakr was not present during this inspection. An assistant manager was operating the service on a daily basis.

The provider had not been present at the service for two months. In effect, they had left their daily role but had failed to formally notify CQC of their absence from the service. This meant there was not a registered person in charge of the daily running of the service and therefore no provider oversight.

The assistant manager ensured the service was monitored. Audits and analysis of the service were in place to help them to promptly identify and reduce any risks. Action plans were drafted to ensure any issues identified were dealt with.

Care workers received a company induction and had initial training in key topic such as medicine administration. However, training was not always refreshed in a timely manner. Training in specific topics such as dementia care was not completed by all staff. Care workers attended regular supervision sessions as part of their personal development. However, no staff appraisals had been carried out. Spot checks were conducted to ensure care workers remained suitable for their role. Care workers told us they felt very supported by the assistant manager.

Staff supported people to stay safe in their own home. Assessments of most risks people faced were in place for care workers to follow. These were regularly updated to reflect any changes in people’s care needs. However, we found examples of known risks which has not been assessed. This shortfall had not impacted on people as there had been no accidents or incidents involving people who used the service or staff. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff understood their responsibilities with regards to protecting people from harm. There had been no incidents of a safeguarding nature. The assistant manager told us that any concerns would be recorded, investigated and reported to the relevant authority. The local authority who commissioned services said they no concerns about the service, other than the absence of the registered person. People told us they felt safe with support from this service and relatives confirmed this.

Medicines were well managed. Medicine administration records were completed. Competency checks were conducted with care workers to ensure they remained competent with this task. Staff protected people from the risks of infection. The company provided care workers with personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff recruitment was safe. We considered there were enough care workers to safely meet people’s needs. People told us their care workers were reliable, consistent and arrived as expected.

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. However, the principals of the Mental Capacity Act were not fully understood by the provider. We have made a recommendation about this.

People told us that care workers made meals of their choice. External health and social care professionals were involved with people’s care to ensure their ongoing welfare.

Without exception, people and relatives told us all staff were caring, kind and respectful. People said care workers upheld their dignity and privacy. Care plans contained person-centred information. People’s needs were assessed, planned and reviewed to ensure they received care which met their needs.

No-one we spoke with raised any complaints about the service. There was a complaints policy in place but no formal complaints had been received by the service. The assistant manager regularly engaged with people, relatives and care workers through visiting people at home and a monthly satisfaction survey. A staff meeting had also recently been held.