Archived: Newcastle

Azure Newcastle provides personal care to people who have a learning disability; some individuals also have a physical disability. The service provides staff to support people in their own homes and can include 24 hour and overnight support. At the time of the inspection 11 people were receiving support from the service.

The service had a registered manager who had been formally registered with the Commission since April 2013. 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.

Safeguarding procedures were in place. There had been two recent safeguarding matters formally dealt with. Safety checks were undertaken on people’s homes on a regular basis, including discussion with people about fire safety. Risk assessments were in place related to the environment and the delivery of care.

Appropriate staffing levels were maintained to support people’s individual needs. Suitable recruitment procedures and checks were in place to ensure staff employed had the correct skills and experience. Medicines were not always managed and administered in line with NICE guidance. We have made a recommendation about this. People were supported to access adequate food and drink.

Staff said they were able to access the training they required and records confirmed mandatory training was up to date. Staff told us, and records confirmed there were regular supervision sessions and that they had an annual appraisal.

The registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. A number of people had restrictions in place linked to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Some people had restriction placed on them by the Court of Protection and copies of these orders were kept on file. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions then best interests decisions had been taken and documented. People had access to health care professionals to help maintain their wellbeing and staff responded to any health concerns.

We observed good relationships between people and staff and saw care provided was personal and responsive to people’s needs. Questionnaire responses from relatives of people indicated the service as good. Questionnaire responses from people who used the service were positive. Staff demonstrated a genuine interest in people as individuals and were empathetic in their approach. People were treated with dignity and respect.

People had individualised care plans that addressed their identified needs. Reviews of care needs were undertaken, although changes were sometimes only noted through hand written items added to the text. Individuals were supported to engage in a range of events and activities linked to their interests, both in their homes and in the community. Two formal complaints had been received and dealt with since the last inspection.

The registered manager showed us records confirming regular checks and audits were carried out at the service. Staff were positive about the leadership of the service and the registered manager. The provider was meeting legal requirements in relation to notifying the CQC of events and displaying their current quality rating. Records were complete and up to date.

The manager organised a coffee morning on the day of our inspection so that people could come and talk with us. We spoke with three people and visited one of them at home in the afternoon. We also spoke with four members of staff.

We conferred with a community nurse and physiotherapist to find out their opinions of the service. Their comments were complimentary.

There were 10 people receiving personal care on the day of our inspection. They lived in their own homes within the Newcastle area. Azure Newcastle provided staff to support these people.

We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People's health, safety and welfare were protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

We considered that there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

There was enough equipment to promote the independence and comfort of people who use the service.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

Relatives told us that consent was gained before care and treatment was carried out. One relative said, 'They inform me of any medical matters. They inform me about what's going on and check it's alright.' We concluded that people were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

Relatives with whom we spoke were complimentary about the care and treatment at the service. One relative informed us, 'I believe the care is very good.' People also gestured to us that they were happy and had no concerns. We concluded that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

Relatives did not have any concerns about infection control and the cleanliness of the environment. However, we found that effective systems were not fully in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

Relatives, with whom we spoke, told us they had no concerns about the number of staff employed to look after people. We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

We found there was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.