We carried out a review of the data available to us about North and South Home Care 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 and South Home Care, you can give feedback on this service.
North Home Care provides short term personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection 100 people were in receipt of care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. The service currently offered rehabilitation packages which were short term.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported by staff who knew how to promote their safety and who used equipment to reduce the risk of infection. Any concerns were reported to the office for action or review. There were enough staff to support people in a safe way which managed and reduce their risk of harm or injury. People’s medicines were administered and managed by staff who had been trained and had their competencies checked. Where things had gone wrong the provider had listened and taken action to learn from those events.
People’s needs had been assessed and staff had been trained and supported to provide the care people needed. Where needed people got the meals they chose and staff prepared these or made sure they were accessible to people later in the day. The provider worked with other professionals such as social workers and hospital staff in support of people’s health care needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received care from staff who were kind and considerate to their needs. Staff knew to respect people’s homes, beliefs and wishes. Promoting independence was a key factor of the service and people had been successful in regaining the skills of daily living [and no longer needing care.]
People’s care plans had been personalised to them and their needs and preferences had been recorded. Staff used these care plans to demonstrate they were meeting people’s needs. Staff knew the best way to communicate with each person, [such as gestures or writing things down.] There was a complaints procedure in place which was accessible in people’s homes. End of life care was not offered as the service was currently offering short term rehabilitation packages.
The registered manager oversaw the service provided and was supported in their role by a care manager. People’s feedback showed they had received a service they were happy with. The quality of care people had received, and the performance of staff had been checked by the registered manager’s systems and processes. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the service and understood their role and their requirements under the regulations.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 25 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager in place for the service who was present throughout 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People using the service told us they felt safe. Risk assessments were completed when people first joined the service and any health and safety issues were identified to help keep people safe. Staff were provided with basic details of people’s support needs and associated risks.
Staff told us that they would raise any concerns or suspicions of abuse with the assistant team managers and home care organisers of the service to help keep people safe. However, many staff had not been supported to complete up-to-date safeguarding training. Although most people told us that staff arrived on time to their calls, some people had experience missed or late calls.
People were satisfied with the support they received to take their medicines. The registered manager was taking action to improve how the administration of medicines was monitored as this was not robust.
People told us that staff understood and met their needs. Staff received supervision and spot checks, although they had not been supported to complete up-to-date training for their roles. People were supported to make their own choices, although staff were not aware of the principles of the MCA.
People we spoke with told us that they were supported to prepare and have meals where necessary, although records did not always reflect that this was consistent practice. People were supported to seek healthcare support when they were unwell or would benefit from such support to remain independent. People were supported to maintain good health.
People told us that staff were kind and caring, staff described the positive rapport they developed with people using the service. People were treated with respect and encouraged to retain their independence. People spoke positively about the service and how this had supported them. People were involved in their care planning and supported to seek help and guidance in the community where applicable.
People were able to complain through the registered provider’s complaints process. Most people we spoke with told us that they had no concerns and that they would raise any issues with staff.
Systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service such as record keeping and medicines management were not robust. Quality assurance processes did not always ensure that sustained improvements would be achieved. The registered provider’s systems had failed to ensure that staff were supported with core training for their roles. People and staff spoke positively about the service and told us that they would recommend the service to others, compliments we sampled reflected this.