We carried out a review of the data available to us about North East Care Management Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about North East Care Management Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
The person’s experience of using this service: The person received extremely high-quality, personalised care from an exceptionally well-led service. The registered manager was very passionate about high-quality, person-centred care.
The person was always kept very safe. Robust measures were in place to minimise the risks they faced. Staff recognised risks and abuse and reported any concerns to the registered manager. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place.
There were more than enough staff employed to manage the service successfully. The recruitment process was robust. Staff benefitted from specific training which was bespoke to suit the person’s needs. Staff were extremely competent in their roles.
The person had achieved remarkable and unique positive outcomes through outstanding support from staff. The person had prompt access to ample external professionals whom the staff worked in excellent partnership with.
The person was supported to have maximum choice and control of their life and was supported in the least restrictive way possible. Staff had assisted the person to regain and maintain almost total independence.
Staff demonstrated exceptionally caring and considerate values. The person told us their staff team were brilliant, and they could not wish for a better team of support workers. The staff team were reliable, consistent and greatly committed to caring for the person.
Person-centred care was fully embraced by staff. The person received a tailor-made service which met all their needs and exceeded the expectations of a domiciliary care service.
The quality and safety of the service was strongly monitored through extensive checks and audits. The registered manager achieved consistently high standards through constant enhancement to the service provided.
Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection this service was rated Good (published on 19 August 2016).
Why we inspected: This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates in line with our inspection programme.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The inspection was carried out on 3 August 2016 by one inspector and was announced. We gave 24 hours' notice of the inspection because we needed to seek the permission of the person who used the service to visit them at home. We needed to be sure staff would be available to access records. We previously inspected this service in January 2014 and found they met all of the outcomes they we inspected.
The service had two registered managers in post, one of which was also the registered provider. 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. We liaised with the registered provider as the other registered manager was unavailable during this inspection.
The person who was supported at home with personal care told us they felt safe with the support from their care team. Their relative confirmed this. Policies and procedures were in place and up to date to protect people from harm and were available for staff to ensure they understood their responsibilities.
There had been no incidents or accidents within the service. The provider told us a procedure was in place and incidents and accidents would be investigated and reported in a timely manner to external agencies such as the local authority or CQC. The provider told us they would analyse incidents and accidents and review care needs, risk assessments and implement preventative measures as necessary.
The service managed risks associated with the health, safety and wellbeing of the person who lived at home, including staff being vigilant for changes in care needs. The person’s care needs had been assessed for all aspects of daily living and we saw evidence which demonstrated records were reviewed and monitored regularly.
Medicines were managed safely and medicine administration records were thorough, accurate and signed by two members of the care team. Medicine was stored appropriately. The staff followed strict guidance regarding the ordering, receipt, storage and disposal of medicine. All other records relating to the management of the service were well maintained.
We saw there was enough staff employed by the service to meet the person’s needs and support them safely at home and in the community. Staff records showed the recruitment process was robust and staff had been safely recruited. Training was up to date and staff had a mix of skills and experience. The provider gave staff opportunities to develop themselves and achieve qualifications in health and social care.
The provider carried out staff supervision and appraisals which were regular and documented. The care team and a relative attended meetings held with the person in their home on a regular basis and minutes were recorded. The management also held regular staff meetings. This demonstrated that the person, their relative and the care team had plenty of opportunities to speak to the management and raise any concerns. Competency checks were undertaken by the management and a senior care team member to assess the staff’s suitability for their role.
There was evidence to show the provider and care team had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and their responsibilities. The service assessed the person's mental capacity and reviewed it as necessary. Care records showed that the person had been involved in making decisions, but more complex decisions that were made in their best interests’ had been appropriately taken with other professionals and a relative involved.
The person told us that when needed, staff provided assistance with meals of their choice. The staff we observed and spoke with displayed kind, caring and compassionate attitudes and the person told us everyone was nice to them. We observed staff treated the person with dignity and respect and it was obvious they knew each other well. They enjoyed a friendly relationship which was full of humour.
The management and care team had built a person-centred care plan for the person receiving support at home. Specific needs such as personal care, nutrition and medical needs had been initially assessed and were regularly reviewed with the involvement of the person, their relative and external professionals. The records described in detail the person’s life history, family members, interest and hobbies. These were kept within the person’s home to ensure they had access to their own information.
The service promoted activities which were indicative of the person’s hobbies and interests. The care team ensured the person was included in their community by arranging and escorting the person on holidays and short breaks. Individual activity plans encouraged the person to get involved in activities which they showed a keen interest in, such as swimming, bowling and snooker.
There had been no complaints received by the service. However there was a robust policy and procedure in place. The provider told us they would record complaints and investigate them thoroughly, providing a full response to the complainant. Any minor issues which had been raised were dealt with immediately. The person we visited told us they had nothing to complain about but felt confident to tell their care team or the management if something was wrong. The staff and other relatives who used the support services also told us they had no complaints about the service.
Regular quality monitoring took place. The management undertook daily, weekly and monthly audits to ensure the quality and safety of the service. The provider asked staff and relatives for feedback and gave them the opportunity to do so. Surveys had been recently issued to gain the opinions of staff and relatives about how the service was managed and how it could be improved. We observed a good response to surveys, which allowed the provider to gather an overall opinion of the service. No comments were made about further improvements on the surveys.
The provider had extensive knowledge in this specialism and had worked with people who have suffered traumatic brain injury for many years. The provider was well established in her role, having known the person they supported in their own home for nine years. The care team was consistent and those we spoke with told us they felt supported, valued and they enjoyed working for the company.
People were supported to give consent to care and support through meetings and discussions with all parties involved, including reference to parties legally appointed through the courts if necessary.
We saw that people's needs were assessed in an inclusive way. Care was planned and regularly reviewed with people and their representatives. Relatives reported a high level of satisfaction with the care. One relative said, "We have care team meetings every two months or so. These are really helpful and keep us all up to date with any changes." Another relative said, "These compare better than any other agency I have used." And a third relative described the service as "Worth every penny." Relatives also reported that the agency had good communication arrangements. One relative said, "I am more than happy with the care. We can call, email, ring anytime."
We found that the agency had adequate numbers of experienced and skilled staff.
People and their representatives were supported to raise concerns and told us they were confident to do so.
Written records were accessible and securely stored when not in use.
We found people were given appropriate information and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People told us staff treated them with respect and courtesy and that they were well cared for. One person said, "The care team are excellent, nothing is too much trouble." We found that care was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare.
Staff received professional development and people told us staff were well trained.
We saw the provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people, who used the service, and to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received.