You are here

North Tyneside Home Care Associates Limited Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

This inspection took place on 18, 20 and 28 July 2017 and was announced.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in to assist us. North Tyneside Homecare Associates is an established service which had previously registered at a different location. This is a first inspection of a newly registered service.

North Tyneside Homecare Associates is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people in their own home.

A manager was in place and they had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 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 received their medicines in a safe way. 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 positively about the care provided.

A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain, although most people said they had not needed to. Where a complaint had been received it had been satisfactorily resolved.

Staff said the manager and 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

Safe

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from possible abuse as systems were in place to protect people. Staff said they would be able to identify any instances of possible abuse and would report any that occurred.

People received their medicines in a safe and timely manner.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs safely. Appropriate checks were carried out before new staff began working with people.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

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.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

The service was caring.

People told us they were happy with the care they received and were well supported by staff. They told us 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.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person centred and people's abilities and preferences were clearly recorded.

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.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

The service was well-led.

A manager was in place who had applied to become 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.