Background to this inspection
Updated
15 August 2019
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The team was made up of one inspector and one Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.
Inspection activity started on 12 July 2019 and ended on 16 July 2019. We visited the office location on 15 July 2019.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed all the information we held about the service, including changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally obliged to send us within the required timescales. We contacted professionals in local authority commissioning teams and safeguarding teams. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke with four people who used the service and nine relatives over the telephone. We spoke with five members of staff: the registered manager, the nominated individual, the client liaison officer and two care staff.
We looked at three people's care plans, risk assessments and medicines records. We reviewed staff training and recruitment documentation, quality assurance systems, a selection of the home's policies and procedures and lessons learned documentation.
After the inspection
We contacted a further three health and social care professionals.
Updated
15 August 2019
About the service
Philip Parkinson Homecare is a domiciliary care provider supporting people with personal care in their own homes in the Newcastle and Northumberland areas. There were 24 people using the service at the time of inspection.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Improvements had been made to risk assessments, meaning people were safe and staff had clear instructions to support them and reduce risks.
Medicines were now managed in line with established best practice. The registered manager demonstrated an awareness of current best practice and relevant staff training was in place.
Record keeping and quality assurance processes had improved. There were new records in place to support smoother transition from other services, and new documents in place to support external medical professionals should they be needed.
The registered manager undertook regular audits of medicines records and observed practice to ensure standards were maintained. They were planning to improve audits by introducing ‘themed’ audits each month. We identified some areas where practice could be improved further that better auditing may have identified.
The provider demonstrated an understanding of the need to notify the commission of certain incidents. They had made such notifications prior to the inspection.
Pre-employment checks were in place and improvements had been made to ensure any gaps in employment were investigated.
People told us staff arrived on time, stayed for the duration of the planned call and did not appear rushed. People agreed that, where there were minor delays, staff always informed people in advance.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People gave positive feedback about the bond they formed with staff and how well staff care for them. Relatives and external professionals agreed.
The registered manager took more of a lead operational role than they had done previously and feedback regarding them was consistently positive. We received mixed feedback about the approachability of the nominated individual from external professionals. The nominated individual is also responsible for how the service is run. Both were passionate about the care their service provided to people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 July 2018). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.
The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.