Newdon Care Services Limited

Updated 26 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 registered provider was 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.

The inspection included a visit to the agency’s office on 6 June 2018. To make sure key staff were available to assist in the inspection the registered provider was given short notice of the visit, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. An adult social care inspector carried out the inspection with the assistance of an expert by experience, who spoke with people who used the service or their relatives on the telephone. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

To help us to plan and identify areas to focus on during the inspection we considered all the information we held about the service, such as notifications sent to us by the registered provider. Before the inspection, the registered provider had also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, and improvements they plan to make.

We also requested the views of other agencies that worked with the service, such as service commissioners and Healthwatch Doncaster. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We spoke on the telephone with two people who used the service and three relatives, other people declined to speak with us or we received no response to our calls. We also spoke with the registered manager, two care coordinators and four care workers, either face to face, on the telephone or via email.

We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. This included checking three people’s care records, how complaints had been managed, staff recruitment, training and support documentation, and the quality assurance systems, to check if they were robust and had identified areas for improvement.

Updated 26 July 2018

Newdon Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. At the time of our inspection 12 people were receiving care and support from the service.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The inspection took place on 6 June 2018 with the registered provider being given short notice of the visit to the office, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. At our previous inspection in June 2017 the service was given an overall rating of ‘Requires Improvement’. Concerns identified included care plans and risk assessments not being up to date and the monitoring and audit processes not identifying the shortfalls we found during the inspection. We asked the registered provider to submit an action plan outlining how they were going to address the shortfalls we found, which they did.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Newdon Care Service Limited’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made regarding care plans and risk assessment updates, and the governance of the service was more robust.

People’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and where possible they, or their relatives, had been involved in formulating care plans. Care plans provided satisfactory information and guidance to staff, which assisted them to deliver the care people needed, in the way they preferred. We found care plans and risk assessments had been updated in a timely manner and staff were clear about their role in ensuring care plans reflected people’s current needs.

The system for assessing if staff were following company policies had been improved so shortfalls were identified in a timely manner and addressed promptly. However, these needed to be fully embedded into practice and reviewed to make sure they continued to be effective.

Improvements had also been made regarding how people were consulted about their satisfaction in the service they received and the outcomes of surveys had been shared with them. This meant people knew what action the registered provider had taken to address any areas for improvement.

The majority of the people we spoke with were happy with the quality of the care the service provided and how it was run. They said care workers met their needs and delivered their care as they wanted it delivering. People told us their privacy and dignity was respected and staff were competent in their work, kind, friendly and helpful.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people. Concerns, complaints, incidents and accidents were being effectively investigated and monitored. This aimed to reduce risks to people and make sure they received the standard of care they expected.

Recruitment processes helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing staff. Staff had undertaken a structured induction, essential training and received regular support, to help develop their knowledge and skills so they could effectively meet people’s needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Records showed people had consented to their planned care and staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent and acting in their best interest.

Where possible, people were encouraged to manage their own medication, with some people being supported by relatives. Where assistance was required support was provided by staff who had been trained to carry out this role. However, medication records were not always consistently completed.

The complaints policy was provided to people using the service along with other information about how the service intended to operate. The people we spoke with told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns, if they had any. When concerns had been raised we saw the correct procedure had been used to record, investigate and resolve issues.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.