We carried out a review of the data available to us about Philip Parkinson Homecare Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Philip Parkinson Homecare Ltd, you can give feedback on this 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.
We last inspected the service in February 2017 and rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. At the inspection in February 2017 we identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 19 (Fit and proper persons employed) and rated the Safe key question as ‘Requires Improvement’.
Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question safe to at least good. At this inspection we found sufficient improvements had not been made in the areas identified at the previous inspection and the service continued not to meet all the fundamental standards we inspected against.
Philip Parkinson Home Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people receiving a service.
The service had a registered manager 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.
At this inspection we found that there were breaches of Regulation 17, 19 and 20a of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. These related to the provider not having a robust recruitment process, some records not being accessible or in place in relation to the service, failure to display the latest performance rating on the provider’s dedicated website and the registered manager failing to notify the Care Quality Commission of incidents regarding abuse.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People and their relatives/advocate told us people felt safe when receiving help and support from staff. Staff had completed training in safeguarding people and the provider actively raised safeguarding concerns with the local authority.
Environmental risk assessments were in place in relation to people’s own homes. Risks to people’s personal safety and wellbeing were identified but were not always assessed and monitored. We have made a recommendation about this.
People and their relatives/advocates felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. They told us they mainly received support from the same staff members. There were mixed views regarding the timeliness of calls but people were satisfied with the reasons why staff were sometimes a little late.
Medicines were managed and administered in a safe way. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were fully completed. Staff received regular competency checks as well as appropriate training to enable them to administer medicines safely.
Staff received regular training, supervisions and annual appraisals to support them in their roles.
People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and to access a range of healthcare professionals.
People and their relatives/advocates spoke highly of staff and felt the service was caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported to express their views and be involved in making choices and decisions about the service they received.
Care plans were in place for meeting each person's individual needs. Regular reviews were carried out with people and their representatives about their care and support.
People and their relatives/advocates told us they knew how to complain and would feel confident in raising any concerns they had with the service. The provider had a complaints procedure in place and kept a log of any complaints received. No complaints had been received since the last inspection.
There were audit systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The views of people and relatives/advocates were sought by the registered manager via annual questionnaires. There were no negative comments received during the latest questionnaires sent out in December 2017.
Philip Parkinson Homecare Ltd is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, services were being provided to 12, mainly older people, who lived in the Northumberland area.
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 taken steps to reduce risks during care delivery and safeguard people from harm and abuse. Enough staff were employed to provide people with safe and consistent care. However, a robust recruitment process had not always been followed to check the suitability of new staff.
People were appropriately supported in meeting their health care needs and, where required, in taking their prescribed medicines. Staff assisted people with their dietary requirements where this formed part of their care plan.
The staff were supervised and provided with training to equip them in meeting the needs of the people they cared for. People were given care they had agreed to, that helped them live independently and, where applicable, supported their informal carers.
Staff had developed caring relationships with people and their families. We were told that workers were friendly in their approach, treated people with respect and promoted their dignity. People were supported to express their views and be involved in making choices and decisions about the service they received.
Care plans for meeting each person’s individual needs were in place. Reviews were held to consult people and their representatives about their care and support. The staff were vigilant towards people’s well-being and reported any changes in their needs.
Arrangements were made to seek feedback about the service and act on any complaints. Staff performance was monitored to ensure good practice standards were met. The management of the service was mostly appropriate, though we have recommended governance be improved to ensure staff are properly vetted.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to staff recruitment. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.