You are here

Archived: Care at Home (Wearside) Limited - 13 Grange Terrace

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 May and 4, 5 June 2014
Date of Publication: 31 July 2014
Inspection Report published 31 July 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 23 May 2014, 4 June 2014 and 5 June 2014, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, talked with other regulators or the Department of Health and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw the provider undertook its own assessments both before and after a person started to receive a service. This included assessing people across a range of areas, such as personal care and domestic needs. The assessment focussed on what people needed help with and what outcomes they hoped to achieve from receiving care. For example, bathing, using the toilet and getting dressed. The assessment was also used to gather information about people preferences, such as food likes and dislikes and whether they preferred a male or female carer. This meant staff had access to detailed information to enable them to understand people’s needs.

We found the initial assessments were used to develop detailed and personalised care plans. We saw that care plans identified a clear outcome with specific steps for staff to follow to ensure they provided consistent care. For example, for one person the outcome was to be as safe and independent as possible and have their personal care needs met with dignity and respect. The steps identified in the plan were centred around involving the person in all aspects of their care, such as prompting staff to ask the person what they needed help with or what they wanted for lunch. We found care plans were reviewed regularly as people’s needs changed. For example, one person’s medication care plan had been updated as it had become apparent during a care review that they needed more help with taking their medication.

People told us they were happy with the care they received and were happy with the care staff. Comments included: “The staff are lovely”; “The staff seem to care”; “They do what I ask”; and, “I am very happy with them.” Family members told us they had no concerns about the care their relative received or the staff delivering the care. Their comments included: “The staff do a great job””; “I am happy with the care delivery”; and “The staff know what they have to do.” This meant that people and family members we spoke with were happy with the care they relatives received.

Care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Where staff had identified a potential risk, either during the initial assessment or after admission, we found that a risk assessment had been completed to ensure people were safe. For example, we found that one person was at risk from skin damage. We saw that the risk assessment clearly identified the potential hazards and the control measures in place to manage the risk, such as regular position changes, daily recording of the person’s skin condition and staff following the agreed moving and handling techniques. The provider undertook spot checks to check that care was carried out in line with people’s care plans. This meant that systems were in place to ensure people received the care they expected.

We looked at the communications book in which staff used to record the activity of their visit to a person's home. The manager explained that the staff were required to read the communications book prior to starting their visit. We talked to staff and they confirmed they read the previous visit activity record in the communications book. They also told us they found this useful as it gave them up to date information on that person. Staff also told

us they felt they had enough time on their visits to carry out both their planned duties together with updating their visit activity record in the communications book. We looked at people's records and could confirm the visits were recorded. For example, the records showed people had been supported with personal care, whether a meal had been prepared and also confirmation of whether medication had been administered. This demonstrated that the service ensured continuity of people's care, treatment and support as a result of effective communication between all those who provided it.