Archived: Age UK Newcastle

Updated 12 January 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 21 and 22 October 2015. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure the registered manager was available to assist the inspection.

The inspection team was made up of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service prior to our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider about significant issues such as safeguarding, deaths and serious injuries the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

We contacted other agencies such as local authorities and Healthwatch to gain their experiences of the service. We received no information of concern from these agencies.

As part of the inspection we sent questionnaires to 50 people who used the service and 50 relatives/visitors. We spoke with the registered manager, the provider’s nominated individual, one home support worker, the office manager, and eight care and office staff. We ‘pathway tracked’ the care of three people, by looking at their care records, visiting them in their homes, talking with them and staff about their care. We spoke with four relatives. We reviewed a sample of six people’s care records; four staff personnel files; and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 12 January 2016

This inspection took place on 21 and 22 October 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure the registered manager was available to assist the inspection.

We last inspected this service in July 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the legal requirements in place at the time.

Age UK Newcastle is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to adults and older people, some of whom may have a dementia-related condition. It does not provide nursing care. It provided personal care to 66 adults and older people at the time of this inspection.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post for one year. 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.

All staff had been trained to recognise and respond to any safeguarding issues. The service acted appropriately in reporting such issues to the local safeguarding adults unit. People told us they felt safe when their care workers were in their house. However, the service had failed to notify the Care Quality Commission about a number of safeguarding incidents.

Risks to people and to staff were assessed, and appropriate control measures were put in place to minimise harm to people. Accidents were recorded and analysed, to see if any lessons could be learned. Plans were in place to keep people safe in the event of an emergency such as severe weather or sudden staff shortages.

The registered manager was aware of the new legal Duty of Candour they owed to people, where something had gone wrong with their care.

There was sufficient staff hours available to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. Staff recruitment was professional and robust, and ensured unsuitable applicants were not employed.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of people’s medicines and had their competency to do so checked regularly.

Staff received a wide range of training to enable them to meet people’s needs. Staff were given support by means of supervision and annual appraisal. People told us they felt staff had the skills they needed.

People were asked to give their consent to their care. However, where people were not able to give informed consent, their rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not being fully protected.

People were supported with their nutritional needs and with their general health needs.

People told us their care workers were very kind and caring and treated them with respect at all times. They said their privacy and dignity were protected and they were encouraged to be as independent as they were able.

People were provided with information about their rights and about the services available to them, such as benefits checks and lunch clubs.

People and their relatives were involved in deciding what their care needs were and how they wished them to be met. Care plans were clear and detailed, and reflected people’s preferences. Regular meetings were held to review each person’s care.

The service recognised the danger of social isolation affecting people’s well-being. People were encouraged by staff to maintain interests, contact with their families and use local community facilities such as day centres and lunch clubs.

The service had recently gone through a major review of its aims and objectives. It had concluded it would be better able to meet people’s needs by withdrawing from its contract with the local authority and providing services mainly to people funding their own care. The provider told us this had given them the scope to plan services which were not constrained by rigid time slots and which would be more centred on the needs of the individual. As a result, the service now provided services to a smaller number of people and was able to demonstrate a significantly better person-focussed approach.

The management team was open, responsive, approachable and keen to improve the quality of the service in all areas. Systems were in place to monitor the performance of the service. People told us they felt they were listened to and were able to influence how their service should be given.

The service had forged links with other Age UK branches to explore potential for economies of scale, share best practice and organisational learning.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 in relation to obtaining people’s consent to their care and the notification of incidents. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.