Background to this inspection
Updated
8 July 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 24 May 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be present at the service offices.
The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience (ExE), who conducted telephone interviews. An ExE is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
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 information we held about the provider, in particular notifications about incidents, accidents, safeguarding matters and any deaths. We contacted the local Healthwatch group, the local authority contracts team, the local authority safeguarding adults team and the local Clinical Commissioning Group. We used their comments to support our planning of the inspection.
Prior to the inspection we sent questionnaires to people who used the service, relatives, staff members and other professionals who worked with the service. We asked them questions about the service and used their responses to support our inspection planning and the writing of the report. We received 14 responses from people who used the service, three responses from staff, three responses from relatives and seven responses from professionals. Additionally, we spoke with three people who used the service on the telephone to obtain their views on the care and support they received.
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the operations manager, a team manager/ professional lead, a team supervisor/ acting deputy manager and four care workers. We also spoke with two professionals who worked closely with the service.
We reviewed a range of documents and records including; three care records for people who used the service, three records of staff employed by the service, training records, complaints and compliment records and accidents and incident records. We also looked at a range of records related to meetings, quality audits and the overall management of the service.
Updated
8 July 2016
This inspection took place on 24 May 2016 and was announced. A previous inspection of the service in January 2014 found there were no breaches of legal requirements.
South East Locality Homecare is a short term support service providing domiciliary care and support to people in their own homes, often following hospital discharge. It is registered to deliver personal care. At the time of the inspection the registered manager told us they supported around 70 people in the urban area of south east Northumberland. He said this number fluctuated regularly depending upon when people were discharged from hospital and referrals from primary care services.
The service had a registered manager who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission since October 2010. 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 told us they felt safe when staff were supporting them with personal care. They told us care workers were very helpful and pleasant. Staff told us they had received training in relation to safeguarding adults and would report any concerns. Processes were in place to recruit staff and to carry out checks to ensure they were suitably experienced and were of good character to work with people who were potentially vulnerable. People told us staff attended their agreed care appointments within prescribed time slots and there were no missed appointments. A system was in place to monitor late visits and take action to avoid any delays.
The provider had in place systems to support staff out of office hours. A new call centre system had recently been introduced and this was said to be working well.
The provider had a comprehensive policy on how people should be supported with medicines and staff had received training on the safe handling of medicines. Staff had a good knowledge of the important aspects of prompting and administering medicines and records related to this activity were complete and up to date. Audits of medicine support were regularly undertaken.
People told us staff had the right skills to support their care needs. Staff said they received training and there was a system in place to ensure this was updated on a regular basis. Staff told us, and records showed there was regular supervision and annual appraisals. Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and issues relating to personal choice and best interest decisions. The registered manager confirmed that no one using the service was subject to restrictions imposed by the Court of Protection.
People told us they found staff caring and supportive. They said their privacy and dignity was respected during the delivery of personal care. Staff had a clear understanding about supporting people to develop and regain their independence. Staff were able to describe how they supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing. People said they were supported by care staff to access adequate food and drinks.
Professionals said the service was very responsive to people’s needs and flexible in its approach. People’s needs were assessed and care plans detailed the type of support they should receive. Care plans contained goals that people wished to achieve and these were reviewed and updated as support progressed and people’s abilities improved. There had been no formal complaints and five informal concerns logged in the previous 12 months and these had been dealt with appropriately. People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care provided and they had no complaints about the service. A number of compliments had been received by the service about the support provided by staff.
The provider had in place systems to effectively manage the service and monitor quality. A range of meetings and monitoring systems were in place to ensure the service was meeting both internal quality standards and Health and Social Care Act regulations. New systems were being introduced to improve person centred care. Regular spots checks took place to review care provision, hand hygiene, medicines management and ensure people were receiving appropriate levels of care. People were also contacted to solicit their views and there was a high level of satisfaction with the service. Staff told us there were regular meetings and information was provided to ensure they were up to date about any changes in care. An electronic contact system supported care workers and allowed them to be aware of changes to people’s care needs quickly, through the use of mobile technology. Records contained good detail, were up to date and stored appropriately.