Archived: Tyne View Care

We used a number of different methods which included observation to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

We saw staff were very busy as they provided care and support to people who used the service. We spoke to a relative and two people who lived at the home who told us staff were kind and helpful but they were kept very busy. Due to the low staff numbers on duty and the high dependency of many people staff worked very hard to make sure people did not have to wait for assistance.

There were not sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living in the home.

People had their needs assessed and care plans had been developed to meet those needs.

The provider had effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care that staff provided. They said 'Staff are very kind." "They're great."

People who used the service, staff, and visitors were not fully protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises, in that ongoing problems with the heating and the passenger lift had not been adequately addressed.

We spoke with all the people living in the home who were able and willing to talk with us. They told us they were happy in the home and felt that they were well cared for. They spoke highly of the staff and said they were treated with respect. Comments included, 'The staff are kind and caring. They've always been very good'; and, 'I love it here. They're wonderful ' always at your beck and call, and always have time for a chat'.

People were being given their medicines only by qualified staff who had been given the appropriate training for this task.

People who used the service, staff, and visitors were not fully protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises, in that ongoing problems with the heating and the passenger lift had not been adequately addressed.

People's care and welfare had been improved by the introduction of regular staff supervision and an improved programme of staff training.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living in the home.

People had not been fully protected, however, because new staff were not being fully vetted before being employed at the home.

People's care needs were fully assessed and were being met in ways that promoted their individuality and ensured their safety and welfare. People told us they were happy with how their care was being given. One told us, 'We get good care, here'.

People were being protected from abuse. The manager and staff had been trained by the local authority safeguarding unit, and had responded appropriately when any safeguarding issues arose.

People told us they were well cared for and that the staff were kind and attentive. We found, however, that not all care workers and qualified staff were being given all the training required by legislation and good practice, and were not receiving the formal supervision and appraisal of their work necessary to ensure they were delivering care and treatment safely and to the appropriate standard.

There were appropriate systems in place for asking the views of people who used the service, and we found that the feedback about the care in the home was very positive. Comments included, 'Wonderful staff and friendly atmosphere', 'Very high quality of care (Cannot fault them at all)', and, 'Very good manager'. The provider had systems in place to assess risks to people's health, safety and welfare.