You are here

Archived: Philip Parkinson Homecare Ltd Good

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

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 23 October 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

The inspection took place on 23 and 28 October 2014 and was announced. We last inspected Philip Parkinson Homecare Limited on 24 July 2014. At that inspection we had identified a breach of regulations in relation to arrangements for managing people’s medicines. We issued a warning notice to the provider and registered manager informing them that they were not meeting the requirements of the law. During this inspection we found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the regulations.

Philip Parkinson Homecare Limited is based in Newcastle upon Tyne and provides personal care to people in their own homes in the Northumberland area. At the time of our inspection 18 people were using the service, most of whom were older people. The service also provided shorter term care and support to people at the end of their lives.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

The arrangements for managing medicines had been improved since our last inspection. Staff had undertaken further training and had their competency in handling medicines assessed. Medicines administered by staff were now appropriately recorded and signed to confirm they had been given to people.

We found that people were provided with a caring and responsive service that met their needs. People were happy with their care and support and had formed good relationships with their care workers. One person said, “The carers have been coming for a few months now. They’ve all been great and they do whatever I ask.” Another person said, “We get along very well. The girls are lovely and such a good help.” Relatives felt assured their family members received reliable care that was delivered safely. One relative told us, “It provides comfort knowing someone’s going in to see her.”

People directed and agreed to how their care was provided and, wherever possible, their preferences were accommodated. The service worked with families and other professionals when people did not have capacity to make important decisions about their care.

Although people were given individualised care, their care records were not fully accurate, personalised and kept up to date. Care plans often lacked information about managing risks to the person’s welfare and how to meet their individual needs. This meant the personal records for people using the service did not protect them against the risks of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care. This was a breach of Regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

New staff were checked and vetted before they started working with people. There were enough staff to provide continuity of care and people told us they usually had the same care workers.

The staff understood how to protect people from abuse and to report any concerns if they believed anyone was being harmed. There had been no safeguarding concerns raised about the service or any reports that staff had put people at risk of neglect by missing their visits.

People were cared for by staff who were supervised and supported in their roles. Staff were given training that enabled them to meet people’s care needs and support them with their health and well-being. The service was well-managed and there were regular checks on staff performance and the quality of the care that people received.

Inspection carried out on 24 July 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We found that the provider and registered manager had not taken the necessary action to improve the way the service managed people’s medicines. No arrangements had been introduced to assess the skills and competency of care workers who handled people’s medicines. Information about people’s prescribed medicines was not always obtained and care plans remained unclear about the extent of support people needed with their medicines. Records of medicines administration were not fully accurate and the service had no effective system to identify and act on discrepancies. This showed us that people using the service were not being protected from the risks associated with medicines.

Inspection carried out on 16 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

Risks associated with providing people’s care were assessed and managed to protect their personal safety. But arrangements for supporting people with their prescribed medicines were not fully robust. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that people using the service were always given their medicines safely. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

There was enough skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of the people using the service. People and their relatives said they usually had the same care workers and told us, “They’re very reliable”, and, “They always ring if they’re running late”. Staffing was suitably organised and cover for absence was provided from within the team to ensure people received consistent care.

Is the service effective?

People and their relatives told us they were pleased with the care given and that their needs were met. They said, “I’ve found them to be very supportive”, and, “We’re really happy with the care and the carers are fantastic”.

Care workers were provided with appropriate training and there were suitable arrangements for supervising and appraising their performance. The workers we talked with told us they were generally well supported in their roles. They felt they were given enough time, and sufficient information, to help them deliver the care that people required.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people’s care was planned according to their individual needs and wishes. People and their relatives told us their care workers were kind, caring and helpful and described good relationships. They said, “I find all the carers are both friendly and professional”, and, “They really are nice, I look forward to them coming”.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs were assessed before they started to receive services and their care and welfare was monitored and reviewed. Care workers told us they were kept updated about any changes to people’s needs and were able to adapt how they delivered their care. The service had responded when care services were requested at short notice, enabling people to be cared for at the end of their lives in their own homes.

Is the service well-led?

People and their relatives were asked for their views and to rate their level of satisfaction with the service. They were informed about how to complain about their service and confirmed to us that they understood the process. Checks were carried out on standards of care records, care practices and the performance of care workers. This showed us that the management used a range of measures to assure the quality of the service that people received.