You are here

Archived: Carewatch (Tyne & Wear) Requires improvement

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 17 January 2017

We inspected this service on 16 December 2016. The inspection was unannounced. We spoke with people and staff on the 19 and 20 December 2016.

At the last unannounced, comprehensive inspection completed on 12 November 2015, we identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 in relation to staffing, safe care and treatment, need for consent, receiving and acting on complaints and good governance. We asked the registered provider to take action to make improvements. The registered provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to these breaches. We undertook this comprehensive inspection to check that the registered provider had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.

The service is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the registered provider had 316 people using its service.

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. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

We found that all the breaches of regulation found in our visit in November 2015 had now been met.

We found all care plans had not been reviewed. There was a risk therefore that people’s needs had changed. We did see the service had consulted with people about their care via telephone calls and quality visits.

Staff told us they were supported by their management and could get help and support if they needed it. Staff did receive supervision through observations and discussions but these were not always recorded.

People were protected by the service’s approach to safeguarding and whistle blowing. People who used the service told us that they were safe, could raise concerns if they needed to and were listened to by staff. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures, could describe what they would do if they thought somebody was being mistreated. The registered provider had in place clear guidance to staff regarding gifts and gratuities to prevent people from being placed at risk of financial abuse.

People we spoke with who received personal care felt the staff were knowledgeable, skilled and their care and support package met their needs. People who used the service told us that they had a team of staff, who were generally reliable and arrived when expected.

The service had systems to ensure staff were appropriately recruited and trained. The service had introduced the Care Certificate for new staff and staff were being supported to achieve National Vocational Qualifications in health and social care.

The staff undertook the management of medicines safely and in line with people’s care plans. The service had health and safety related procedures, including systems for reporting and recording accidents and incidents. The care records we looked at included risk assessments, which had been completed to identify any risks associated with the person’s environment and delivering the person’s care.

People’s consent had been obtained by the service to deliver care and people and their relatives and carers told us the service was caring.

The service had considered people’s food and fluid intake and put in place specific plans to meet individual people’s needs.

The registered provider had in place a statement of confidentiality and staff we spoke to understood the statement.

The service had in place arrangements to gather information about people before they visited people to assess their needs before delivering care. Care plans were person centred.

There were quality assurance systems in place to gain the views of people using the service and to check on the safety

Inspection areas



Updated 17 January 2017

The service was safe.

We found that there were effective processes in place to make sure people were protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm and abuse. Staff took appropriate action to raise and investigate incidents and concerns.

Effective recruitment procedures were in place.

Risk assessments were undertaken of the environment and personal risks.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management and administration of medicines.



Updated 17 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained to deliver the care and support people required. Supervision had not been consistent nor had staff meetings and the management team told us they were aware this was their key priority.

Records showed and staff understood the importance of obtaining people�s consent prior to any tasks being undertaken and staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act.

Where the service provided support with mealtimes, we saw that people were provided with effective nutritional support by trained staff.



Updated 17 January 2017

The service was caring.

We heard the staff had developed positive relationships with people and were caring and kind.

People told us their privacy and dignity were very well respected.

People were supported to retain their independence.


Requires improvement

Updated 17 January 2017

The service was not always responsive.

People�s care plans contained individual, person centred information about their needs and preferences.

Care was provided on an individual basis, based on people�s individual needs, with changes being made to reflect changing circumstances. Care plan reviews were not always up-to-date but people were consulted about their care.

People had been provided with information on how to make formal complaints and said that they knew how to access the complaints procedure .


Requires improvement

Updated 17 January 2017

The service was not always well-led.

Records in relation to care plan reviews and staff supervision needed to be up to date. The service needed to ensure quality monitoring was more consistent and the senior staff team was recruited to and embedded to support this.

People received a reliable and caring service, and expressed good levels of satisfaction with their care.

The service sought regular reviews of client care and feedback.