You are here

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 January 2018

This was the first inspection of the service since a change in registration in May 2017. At the time of the inspection there were 332 people using the service.

Everyday (North Tyneside) is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own houses and in specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults, including people living with dementia and younger disabled adults. This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

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 there was sufficient staffing capacity and people received a reliable and consistent service. The staff were trained, supervised and had the necessary skills to support people effectively.

The service had established systems to protect people from harm, abuse and risks to their personal safety. Where required, people were provided with appropriate assistance with their medicines and in meeting their health-related and dietary needs.

People were consulted about and consented to their care. The implications of mental capacity law in upholding people’s rights were understood and put into practice.

Supportive relationships had been formed between people, their families, the staff and management. People felt they were treated kindly, that staff had a caring approach and were respectful of their privacy and dignity.

People were informed about what they could expect from using the service. Further information, advice and local support services within the organisation were made available to people and their carers. There was good teamwork in co-ordinating and delivering people’s care.

Care planning was focused on the individual’s needs, preferences and provision of personalised care. The staff teams worked flexibly and were responsive to people’s changing needs. Care staff provided companionship and, where possible, supported people to prevent them from being socially isolated.

People were encouraged to express their views about their care experiences and the service they received. Feedback was used to influence improvements and any complaints were taken seriously and responded to.

The service worked openly and inclusively with people, their relatives and staff. There were good leadership and governance arrangements, and aims were set each year to develop the quality of the services provided. We found some issues with quality assurance and have made a recommendation about more robust auditing of records and monitoring of the timings of visits.

Inspection areas



Updated 27 January 2018

The service was safe.

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.

People received suitable support to take their prescribed medicines.

Lessons were learned from untoward incidents and led to changes in practice.



Updated 27 January 2018

The service was effective.

People were provided with good standards of personal care by staff who were well trained and supported in their roles.

The service assisted people, where required, in meeting their health care and nutritional needs.

Staff worked together, and with other professionals, in co-ordinating people�s care.

Systems were in place to ensure people consented to their care.



Updated 27 January 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, caring and supportive of people and their families.

People were encouraged to express their views and make decisions about their care.

Privacy and dignity were respected and people�s independence was promoted.



Updated 27 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Care was tailored to the individual and the ways they preferred to be supported.

People were informed about the complaints procedure and the service responded to any concerns received.

Arrangements could be made to care for people at the end of their lives.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 January 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

More thorough auditing and monitoring are recommended to make sure the management has full oversight of the services being delivered.

The service had an open, empowering culture and worked in partnership with others.

Regulatory requirements were understood and the service was well-managed.

There was a clearly defined governance structure that supported continuous improvement.