• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Direct Health (Tyneside)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Room 3, Bulman House, Regent Centre, Gosforth, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE3 3LS (0191) 213 3600

Provided and run by:
Direct Health (UK) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

7 January 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 4 and 5 August 2015. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to safeguarding people’s personal finances and medicines management.

We undertook this focused inspection on 7 January 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to these requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Direct Health (Tyneside) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Direct Health (Tyneside) is a domiciliary care agency that provides home care services to people in North Tyneside and Gateshead. At the time of our inspection services were provided to 144 people who were predominantly older people, people with dementia-related conditions and other mental health needs, and people with physical and learning disabilities.

The service had 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.

We found the provider had met the assurances they had given in their action plan and were no longer in breach of the regulations.

Improved systems were in place to ensure that people’s personal finances were handled safely.

The recording of medicines administered to people had improved and regular audits were carried out to check that people’s medicines were being managed appropriately.

4 & 5 August 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 4 and 5 August 2015 and was announced. We had last inspected Direct Health (Tyneside) in March 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at the time.

Direct Health (Tyneside) is a domiciliary care agency that provides home care services to people in North Tyneside and Gateshead. At the time of our inspection services were provided to 130 people who were predominantly older people, people with dementia-related conditions and other mental health needs, and people with physical and learning disabilities.

The service had 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.

We found that care was planned to prevent and manage risks to people’s safety and welfare. People told us they felt safe with their care workers. New staff were checked and vetted and there were sufficient staff to provide people’s care services.

Safeguarding procedures were understood and followed to protect people from harm and abuse. However adequate arrangements were not in place to make sure people were safely supported in managing their personal finances.

Records did not always demonstrate that people had been given their prescribed medicines correctly. The service had just introduced a system to identify and act on recording discrepancies.

Staff received appropriate training and support that equipped them for their roles and ensured they could deliver the care that people required.

People were well supported in meeting their nutritional needs, including where they had special diets. Health needs were addressed and staff monitored people’s well-being and contacted health care professionals when necessary.

People were consulted about and agreed to their care and support. Care needs were thoroughly assessed and care was planned in a personalised way according to the individual’s preferences.

People and their relatives told us they had formed good relationships with their regular care workers. They told us their care workers were kind and caring and respected their privacy and dignity. Visits were not missed and the staff team worked flexibly to accommodate people’s changing needs.

There was a clear complaints process and any concerns received were taken seriously and investigated. People told us they received a good service, though some were dissatisfied with the number of different care workers who visited them and contact with office based staff. We have made a recommendation about co-ordination of the service and communication with people and their families.

The registered manager provided leadership and was keen to improve the standards of the service. The quality of the service was continuously monitored and took account of people’s care experiences and suggestions for improvement.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to safeguarding and medicines management. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

19 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The reason for this visit was to check if improvements had been made in the area of record keeping following a previous inspection.

We saw that records were up to date and fit for purpose. Records were accurate and stored securely.

25 April and 1 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People were given information they needed to make an informed decision about their care and were asked to provide their consent to such care.

We saw people were cared for effectively. People were safe and protected from abuse.

There was an effective recruitment process which ensured the staff recruited were of sufficiently good character.

The provider had an effective system in place to record and monitor complaints. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.

We saw accurate and appropriate records were not always maintained or stored correctly.

People who used the service were positive about the care and support provided. Comments included 'I'm very pleased with the care I receive. I don't have to ask for anything they just do it' and 'I have no problem with the carers. I trust them.

7 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We found that the comments made by people were mixed.One relative, speaking on behalf of a service user, told us that the hours allotted were not appropriate. The service user was in bed for over 12 hours between being put to bed and being got up in the morning and was bored and hungry by that time. The relative said that numerous attempts to get more 'person-friendly' times had been unsuccessful, to date.

This apart, the care was described as, 'Generally, very good, and excellent from some carers', and, 'The lasses are lovely.' Care workers were described as being reliable, punctual, respectful, discrete and protective of the service user's privacy and dignity.

One service user told us 'They're alright for what time they have. They're rushed for time. They can't do much in half an hour.'

A relative of another service user confirmed the reliability and punctuality of the care workers, and told us, 'They are really good, even the young men'.

23 March 2011

During a routine inspection

People said they were consulted about how their care and support should be delivered. They felt the staff were competent and well trained. They said privacy and dignity was respected and they were encouraged to maintain their independence. They said they did not feel 'rushed' during the visits and the carers always stayed the correct amount of time. They said they were contacted on a regular basis to obtain their views of the service they received. They all knew how to make a complaint and felt confident this would be taken seriously.