You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

This inspection took place on 26 and 27June 2017 and was announced. We announced the inspection because the service provides care to people in their own homes and we wanted to be sure there would be someone at the office to speak with us. This was the first time we had inspected this service at this address, although it had previously operated from a different address in Northumberland. The service was registered at this address with CQC in August 2016. Following the inspection we spoke to a range of individuals during the week commencing 3 July 2017.

G&P Healthcare Ltd provides nurse-led care in people’s own homes. Nurses carry out visits to plan people’s care and to regularly monitor people’s needs and the care provided. Delivery of care is provided by trained care workers. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 14 packages of care, delivering support to 15 individuals. Nine of the individuals being supported were children or young people.

The service had a registered manager who had been registered since July 2016. 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. The registered manager was also the nominated individual for the service provider.

The provider had in place a safeguarding policy and staff had received training in relation to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children. Staff said they would report any concerns to the manager or senior staff. There had been two recent safeguarding incidents in the service which had been dealt with appropriately and reported to the appropriate authorities. Risk assessments were in place linked to care delivery in each person’s home. Regular checks were maintained to ensure the risk assessments were up to date.

Staffing was delivered through the development of teams around individual care packages. People told us that in the main they were support by the same group of care staff. Staff told us there were sufficient staff to deliver individualised care. Proper recruitment procedures and checks were in place to ensure staff employed by the service had the correct skills and experience. Medicines were managed and handled safely. There were plans in place for the use of ‘as required’ medicines and the use of covert medicines, where necessary. Specialist instructions were available if medicines were administered through PEG feed systems.

People were supported to access adequate levels of food and drink. Where specialist feeding systems were in use staff had received training of how to do this safely and appropriately. Staff had their competency monitored in the use of these feeding methods.

Structures were in place to ensure staff had regular training and updating of skills and staff confirmed this was the case. Records indicated the majority of staff had completed all mandatory training. Staff told us, and records confirmed there were regular supervision sessions for all staff members and each staff member had an annual appraisal.

The registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. No one being supported by the service had any restrictions on their freedom granted by the Court of Protection. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions best interests decisions had been taken and documented. It was not always possible to be sure family members had been fully involved in these decisions. We have made a recommendation about this.

We observed good and relaxed relationships between people and staff. Staff understood about people’s individual needs and personalities. People were supported to access health care professionals and services to help maintain their wellbeing. Specialist advice was sought and acted upon, where necessary. Staff un

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

Then service was safe.

Safeguarding matters had been dealt with appropriately and staff had received training in the protection of vulnerable adults and children. Risk assessments were in place related to the delivery of care in people’s own homes.

People and staff told us there were sufficient staff on duty to deliver effective care. Appropriate systems were in place to support the safe recruitment of staff.

Medicines were managed appropriately and staff had their competency regularly assessed. Measures and procedures were in place to limit the risk of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was effective.

Staff training was up to date and people told us staff had the correct skills to support them effectively. They told us and records showed there were regular supervisions sessions and an annual appraisal.

The manager understood the requirements of the MCA (2005). Where necessary best interests decisions had been made, although family involvement was not always clearly documented.

People were supported to access health services to maintain their well-being and were also assisted to access appropriate levels of food and fluids.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was caring.

People and relative told us staff were very caring and supportive of their needs. We saw there were good relationships between staff and people they cared for.

People and relatives told us they were involved in determining and reviewing care needs and decisions.

People’s privacy and dignity was supported and respected throughout the delivery of care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans contained information about the person as an individual. Care plans reflected people’s needs and contained good detail for staff to follow. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed.

People were supported in activities and following their particular interests. The provider had a complaints policy in place and any concerns were dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Outstanding

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was well-led.

People, relatives and professionals all praised the registered manager highly. They said she was approachable, flexible and highly knowledgeable. Staff also felt they were well supported by managers.

A range of audit systems were in place, including regular direct visits to people’s home to check staff approaches, documentation and the appropriateness of care plans.

Results from questionnaires from people who used the service and staff were extremely positive about the running and management of the service. Other services said the provider worked in a highly co-operative manner. Records contained very good detail and were maintained appropriately.