New Concept Care Market Weighton

Updated 19 July 2018

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 19th, 25th and 29th June 2018 and was announced.

We gave the provider two days’ notice of the inspection site visits. This was to enable staff to ask for people's consent to a home visit from an inspector. We needed to be sure that someone would be available to speak to us.

The inspection team on day one consisted of two adult social care inspectors, one inspector stayed for part of the day. The second day was attended by one adult social care inspector and on the final day the inspector had discussions with staff on the phone. Two experts-by-experience contacted people or their relatives by phone for feedback on day one of the inspection. The expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR) to plan the inspection. The PIR is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We contacted the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams to gather further feedback about the service.

We visited the provider’s office and spoke with the registered manager, one care co-ordinator and the nominated individual. The nominated individual is a person chosen by the organisation to represent them. They are responsible for supervising the management of the regulated activity provided. We looked at 14 people's care records, medication records, 11 staff recruitment and training files and a selection of records used to monitor the quality of the service. We spoke with 10 care staff in the office or over the telephone. We visited three people in their own homes and observed care staff interacting with them, and spoke with a further 12 people who used the service over the telephone. We spoke with nine relatives of people who used the service.

Updated 19 July 2018

This inspection took place between 19 June and 29 June 2018 and was announced. The service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older and younger people who may have learning impairment, and live in their own houses and flats in the East Yorkshire region.

At the time of our inspection, 234 people were using the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff received training to safeguard people from avoidable harm and abuse. The provider had policies and procedures in place which supported staff to raise concerns and report any concerns they may have to the appropriate manager or external agencies. Risk assessments were in place and the provider was in the process of reviewing some of these so that they contained additional guidance for staff. Medicines were managed safely, we identified one recording issue. Regular audits identified any area that required improvements.

The provider had a system in place to ensure that care visits were scheduled to meet people’s needs and requirements. We received mixed feedback from staff about whether the provider incorporated sufficient travel time on rota’s for them to deliver care and support at the times required. People we spoke with told us they received their calls on time give or take five minutes and that staff had not missed any of their calls. Staff received training on various subjects and could complete additional distance learning to further develop their skills and knowledge. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and support was provided with meal preparation and assisting people to eat and drink, where this was part of their care plan.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. The provider ensured that where people had a legal representative in place, the appropriate confirmations were sought and records kept. Staff described how they supported people to remain as independent as they could be, whilst protecting their human rights. Staff could tell us how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. There was a complaints procedure in place. Records we viewed showed that complaints were investigated and responded to in line with the provider’s policy.

People and their relatives were happy with the care they received. Some people felt staff went above and beyond to meet their needs. Records showed people were involved in their care and support planning and where people had expressed a wish for their relatives to be involved, staff ensured they were invited to important discussions such as reviews of care and support needs. Staff supported people to access hospital and GP appointments when needed. Records showed some people received regular visits from district nurses, such as those people with diabetes that required regular monitoring and insulin injections.

The provider had a quality assurance system in place which improved practices within the service. Information relating to incidents and accidents was shared with staff so that lessons could be learnt and continuous improvements sustained. The provider worked in partnership with other organisations to ensure best practices were adhered to. People and their relatives felt the management and leadership worked well to ensure care and support was consistently delivered. The provider supported staff to develop their skills and knowledge through training, supervisions and inviting health professionals to attend meetings to share their knowledge.

Further information is in the detailed findings below