You are here

South Tyneside Home Care Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 September 2018

This was an announced inspection which took place on 18, 23, 24 July and 15 August 2018. We gave the provider 24 hours' notice to ensure someone would be available at the office.

We inspected the service to follow up on the breaches and to carry out a comprehensive inspection.

At the last inspection in May 2017 the service was not meeting all of the legal requirements with regard to regulation 17, governance, regulation 9, person-centred care and regulation 12, safe care and treatment.

Following that inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions safe care and treatment, person-centred care and governance to at least good.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of regulations 9, 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

South Tyneside Homecare Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people in their own home. At the time of inspection 100 people were using the service supported by 50 staff members.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

People and their relatives told us the service kept them safe. They trusted the workers who supported them. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse. People's medicines were managed safely. The provider and registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough staff were deployed to support people safely. The provider's recruitment process minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

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. Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people's care needs.

Staff were aware of people's nutritional needs and made sure they were supported with eating and drinking where necessary. People's health needs were identified and staff worked with other health care professionals to ensure these were addressed.

People praised the kind and caring approach of staff. Staff were respectful and explained clearly how people's privacy and dignity were maintained. Staff understood the needs of people and care plans were person-centred. People and their relatives spoke very positively about the care provided.

People were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies. They were supported to contribute and to be part of the local community.

Staff said the management team were supportive and approachable. Communication was effective, ensuring people, their relatives and other relevant agencies were kept up-to-date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 18 September 2018

The service was safe.

Improvements had been made to keep people safe. Systems were in place to ensure their safety and well-being. People received suitable support to take their prescribed medicines.

Appropriate steps were taken to safeguard people against abuse. Risks were assessed and managed, including measures to control the risk of infection.

Enough skilled staff were employed to safely meet people�s needs. Appropriate checks were carried out before new staff began working with people.



Updated 18 September 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had access to training and a system was in place to ensure this was up-to-date. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals.

People's rights were protected. Best interest decisions were made appropriately on behalf of people, when they were unable to give consent to their care and treatment.

Staff liaised with General Practitioners and other health care professionals to make sure people's care and treatment needs were met.

People received food and drink to meet their needs and support was provided for people with specialist nutritional needs.



Updated 18 September 2018

The service was caring.

People told us they were happy with the care they received and were well supported by staff. They said staff met their needs appropriately and with dignity and respect.

Staff were aware of people's individual needs, backgrounds and personalities. This helped staff provide individualised care to the person.

People were encouraged to express their views and make decisions about their care. People were supported to maintain contact with their friends and relatives.



Updated 18 September 2018

The service was responsive.

Improvements had been made to record keeping. This helped to ensure people received support in the way they wanted and needed because staff had detailed guidance about how to deliver their care.

Processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns. People were aware of how to make a complaint should they need to and expressed confidence in the process.



Updated 18 September 2018

The service was well-led.

A registered manager was in place who had registered with the Care Quality Commission.

An ethos of individual care and involvement was encouraged amongst staff with people who used the service.

The provider monitored the quality of the service provided and introduced improvements to ensure that people received safe care that met their needs.