18 September 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 18, 23, 24 July and 18 August 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours' notice to ensure someone would be available at the office. We carried out a site visit on the first day of inspection and on days two, three and four we carried out telephone interviews with people who use the service, relatives and staff.
The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector who carried out the site visit on the first day and telephone interviews on day four with staff and an expert-by-experience carried out telephone interviews on days two and three. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service for older people.
Before the inspection, we had received a completed Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We also contacted commissioners from the Local Authorities who contracted people’s care.
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the operations manager, one co-ordinator and three care workers. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. We looked at care records for six people, recruitment, training and induction records for five staff, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes and quality assurance audits the registered manager had completed. After the inspection we telephoned and spoke with four people, 18 relatives and four support staff.
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.