We carried out a review of the data available to us about Easterside Community Hub on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Easterside Community Hub, you can give feedback on this service.
Easterside Community Hub is a domiciliary care service providing personal care for people living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection Easterside Community Hub were providing personal care to 101 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
There were enough trained staff to provide care and support for people, however there was mixed feedback about the consistency of care staff and the times of calls. We have made a recommendation about staffing.
Audits were regularly completed to identify any actions that were needed to improve the service. They did not always identify that some risk assessments had not been updated to fully reflect people’s decisions and preferences. Whilst this had no direct impact on people’s care, we have made a recommendation about quality assurance.
Safe recruitment practices were followed, and staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed and mitigated. Medicines were managed safely, and staff took necessary precautions to prevent and control infections.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Systems were in place to seek feedback from people, relative’s and staff and it was explained how action would be taken in response to general and individual concerns.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 14 June 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
Recommendations
We have made recommendations in relation to staff deployment and quality assurance systems.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
This was an ‘inspection using remote technology’. This means we did not visit the office location and instead used technology such as electronic file sharing to gather information, and video and phone calls to engage with people using the service as part of this performance review and assessment.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community It provides a service to older adults. At the time of our inspection 24 people were using the service, 11 of whom received personal care.
Not everyone using Hand 2 Hold receives 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 take into account any wider social care provided.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 staff at the service helped them to stay safe. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce them. The provider had plans in place to support people in emergency situations that disrupted the service. Policies and procedures were in place to ensure good standards of infection control. People’s medicines were managed safely. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse. The provider and registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough staff were employed to keep people safe. The provider’s recruitment policies minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
Staff received a range of mandatory training to help them provide effective support and received regular supervisions and appraisals. 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. Some people using the service received support with food and nutrition. Where this was the case people’s dietary needs and preferences were supported. People were supported to access external professionals to monitor and promote their health.
People and their relatives spoke very positively about the support they received from the service. All of the relatives we spoke with said the health and wellbeing of people had improved as a result of the kind and dedicated support staff offered. People and their relatives said staff treated people with respect and helped them to maintain their dignity and independence. People were supported to access advocacy services.
People and their relatives said people received personalised care based on their support needs and preferences. Personalised care planning and delivery was evident. People and their relatives said communication with the service was good. Policies and procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints. The provider had policies in place to support people with end of life care if needed.
Staff spoke very positively about the culture, values and leadership of the service. The provider and registered manager carried out a number of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service. Plans and procedures were in place to obtain feedback on the service from people, relatives and staff. The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken.