Archived: Grovewood House New House

Updated 6 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection site visit took place on 6 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider short notice of the inspection because we needed to be sure the office would be open to access records. An inspector and an assistant inspector visited the office location to speak with the person in charge; and to review records, policies and procedures.

At the site visit, we spoke with the assistant manager. The registered person was not present. We reviewed a range of care records and the records kept regarding the management of the service. This included looking at four people’s care records, four staff files and quality assurance documentation.

On 7 and 8 November 2018, an expert by experience conducted telephone interviews with five people who were receiving care in their own homes. We also spoke with four relatives to gather their views about the service. As the care staff worked remotely, we spoke with five of them by telephone to obtain their opinions. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of using a similar service.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about Grovewood House New House including any statutory notifications that the provider had sent us and any safeguarding information we had received. Notifications are made to us by providers in line with their obligations under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. These are records of incidents that have occurred within the service or other matters that the provider is legally obliged to inform us of.

Before the inspection we asked the registered person to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that the provider sends to CQC at least once annually with key information about the service, what improvements they have planned and what the service does well.

In addition, we contacted Northumberland local authority commissioning team and adult safeguarding team to obtain their feedback about the service.

Updated 6 December 2018

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2016. This inspection took place on 6 November 2018 and was announced. The service is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes throughout North Northumberland. Services were provided to adults with a wide range of health and social care needs. At the time of our inspection there were 35 people receiving a service.

Not everyone using Grovewood House New House received regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

Mr Ayman Mohammad Osama Bakr is registered with CQC as a sole individual. Therefore, there is no requirement to have a registered manager. 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. Mr Ayman Mohammad Osama Bakr was not present during this inspection. An assistant manager was operating the service on a daily basis.

The provider had not been present at the service for two months. In effect, they had left their daily role but had failed to formally notify CQC of their absence from the service. This meant there was not a registered person in charge of the daily running of the service and therefore no provider oversight.

The assistant manager ensured the service was monitored. Audits and analysis of the service were in place to help them to promptly identify and reduce any risks. Action plans were drafted to ensure any issues identified were dealt with.

Care workers received a company induction and had initial training in key topic such as medicine administration. However, training was not always refreshed in a timely manner. Training in specific topics such as dementia care was not completed by all staff. Care workers attended regular supervision sessions as part of their personal development. However, no staff appraisals had been carried out. Spot checks were conducted to ensure care workers remained suitable for their role. Care workers told us they felt very supported by the assistant manager.

Staff supported people to stay safe in their own home. Assessments of most risks people faced were in place for care workers to follow. These were regularly updated to reflect any changes in people’s care needs. However, we found examples of known risks which has not been assessed. This shortfall had not impacted on people as there had been no accidents or incidents involving people who used the service or staff. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff understood their responsibilities with regards to protecting people from harm. There had been no incidents of a safeguarding nature. The assistant manager told us that any concerns would be recorded, investigated and reported to the relevant authority. The local authority who commissioned services said they no concerns about the service, other than the absence of the registered person. People told us they felt safe with support from this service and relatives confirmed this.

Medicines were well managed. Medicine administration records were completed. Competency checks were conducted with care workers to ensure they remained competent with this task. Staff protected people from the risks of infection. The company provided care workers with personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff recruitment was safe. We considered there were enough care workers to safely meet people’s needs. People told us their care workers were reliable, consistent and arrived as expected.

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. However, the principals of the Mental Capacity Act were not fully understood by the provider. We have made a recommendation about this.

People told us that care workers made meals of their choice. External health and social care professionals were involved with people’s care to ensure their ongoing welfare.

Without exception, people and relatives told us all staff were caring, kind and respectful. People said care workers upheld their dignity and privacy. Care plans contained person-centred information. People’s needs were assessed, planned and reviewed to ensure they received care which met their needs.

No-one we spoke with raised any complaints about the service. There was a complaints policy in place but no formal complaints had been received by the service. The assistant manager regularly engaged with people, relatives and care workers through visiting people at home and a monthly satisfaction survey. A staff meeting had also recently been held.