You are here

Newcross Healthcare Solutions Limited (Southampton) Requires improvement

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 20 February 2019

People’s relatives, commissioners and staff told us that there were not sufficient numbers of staff in place. This had resulted in the provider being unable to fulfil all the hours of care that it had been commissioned. People’s families told us staffing levels meant that they were sometimes left without care, particularly when main staff were absent. This meant that families were required to cover care call in staff’s absence. The registered manager had recognised that staffing levels were an issue and had informed commissioners where they were struggling to cover care calls.

The registered manager had identified actions to take to improve staffing levels. The provider needed more time to demonstrate these improvements were effective and sustainable.

People’s relatives told us there had been frequent changes in the management, which had a negative impact on the quality and consistency of the service. Relatives told us that communication from the provider required improvement and that they were often unaware of who to contact to discuss their family members care. The registered manager was addressing these issues and was in the process of recruiting additional office based staff.

The registered manager was committed to their role and understood the key challenges to improve the quality of the service. They started working for the provider in 2018 and had implemented improvements in care planning, reporting of safeguarding and staff training. The changes made in these areas had been effective and sustained.

The registered manager had auditing and monitoring systems in place to assess the quality of key aspects of the service. Senior management from the provider had oversight of the service through regular reports and meetings with the registered manager.

Staff had access to training relevant to their role, including specific training to meet people’s individual needs. The provider had systems in place to support staff and assess their competence in their role. The provider had robust recruitment policies and procedures in place to help ensure only suitable candidates were employed.

People’s relatives were involved in developing and reviewing people’s care plans. Where people had complex medical conditions, input from other professionals was also incorporated into plans of care. The provider had a team of clinical staff who oversaw the writing and review of care plans and guidance. People had access to healthcare services as required.

People’s care plans included details about their routines, preferences and communication needs. There were systems in place to help ensure the service ran safely outside of office hours.

Staff understood the need to gain appropriate consent to care. 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.

People were supported appropriately with their medicines and there was guidance in place to mitigate the risks associated with people’s health and medical conditions. People’s nutritional needs and preferences were identified in their care plans and where people required specialist techniques to gain nutrition, staff had relevant guidance and training in place.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and relatives told us that their permanent members of staff were kind, reliable and treated their family members with dignity and respect. People were given a choice about their staffing and the provider had systems to ensure only suitable staff were allocated to work with people.

There were systems to ensure people’s concerns and complaints were dealt with appropriately. The registered manager listened to feedback from people to identify where they needed to make changes. Relatives told us that historically the provider had not always acted responsively to their concerns, but told us the registered manager had made some improv

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 20 February 2019

The service required improvement.

There were not sufficient staff in place to meet people’s needs. The provider was unable to fulfil all the care hours which they were commissioned to provide.

There were policies in place to protect people from abuse and harm and risks associated with people’s health and medical conditions were mitigated.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of infections spreading.

There were systems in place to analyse incidents and accidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 February 2019

The service remains good.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 February 2019

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 February 2019

The service remains good.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 20 February 2019

The service had not been consistently well led.

The frequent changes in leadership had a negative effect on communication and the effective running of the service.

The registered manager carried out audits to help assess the quality of care and had made improvements to the quality of the service in relation to training, the reporting of safeguarding and care planning.

The registered manager sought feedback from people to make improvements.

The provider worked with other stakeholders when issues arose to help work towards continuity and consistency in care arrangements.