Direct Care (Tameside)

Updated 30 December 2020

The inspection

This was a targeted inspection to check whether staffing levels in the service were safe and that the provider was making the appropriate notifications to CQC regarding events and incidents.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of two Inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

Notice of inspection

The first day of inspection was unannounced.

Inspection activity started on 10 November and ended on 26 November 2020. We visited the office location on 26 November 2020.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with six people who used the service and three relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with eight members of staff including the registered manager, office staff, senior care workers and care workers

We reviewed a range of records. This included staff rotas and a variety of records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 30 December 2020

This was an announced comprehensive inspection which took place on 21 and 26 June 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides the regulated activity personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of our inspection there were 218 people using the service.

Not everyone being supported by Direct Care (Tameside) receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the ‘personal care’ service being received by people; which includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

The service was inspected in January 2017 when we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) regulations 2014. These were in relation to medicines management and governance systems, including how accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored. We issued requirement actions. The service was rated requires improvement overall. Following the inspection we asked the provider to complete an improvement plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions, is the service safe and well-led to at least good.

During this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

There was a good system of quality assurance in place. Weekly and monthly checks and audits were carried out by the registered manager and other managers of the service. These were used to assess, monitor and review the service.

Detailed records of accidents and incidents were kept. Managers of the service kept a log of all accidents and incidents so that they could review the action taken and identify any patterns or lessons that could be learned to prevent future occurrences.

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. The service had two registered managers. One of the registered managers was newly registered with CQC, the other was one of the providers of the service and had been in post for some time. They told us that they were remaining registered to provide support and guidance to the new registered manager until they had finished their induction and would then deregister.

People who used the service and staff we spoke with were positive about both the registered managers.

There was a safe system of recruitment in place which helped protect people who used the service from unsuitable staff. Staff received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff we spoke with were aware of safeguarding and how to protect vulnerable people. Staff were confident any issues they raised would be dealt with properly. There were systems in place to protect people’s security and their property.

Risks to people who used the service and staff were assessed. Guidance was given to staff on how to minimise those risks. Suitable arrangements were in place to help ensure people’s health and nutritional needs were met.

People who used the service told us they were consulted about the care provided and staff always sought their consent before providing support. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 were being met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.

Care visits were well organised, staff worked in geographical teams. This helped to provide consistency of support. People told us visits where rarely missed.

The provider was part of a pilot project and was developing more effective, holistic and outcome based practices for meeting peoples care needs. This was being trialled in two local geographical areas. It also included a more person-centred approach to care planning and recording.

People who used the service and their relatives were very positive about the caring and kind attitude of the staff. Staff knew people well and spoke about people in respectful and affectionate terms. Staff enjoyed their work, took a pride in the care they provided and had a very good knowledge of people they supported.

Staff we spoke with enjoyed their work, took a pride in the care they provided, had a very good knowledge of people they supported and demonstrated a commitment to person centred care.

Care records we reviewed were very person centred and included what was important to and for the person, including their routines, interests and preferences. People were supported in their own homes and to access community activities and events.

People who used the service were very positive about the service and the way it was managed and organised. Staff we spoke with liked working for the service and told us they felt supported in their work.

We found all members of the management team had a good knowledge of the care and support needs of the people who used the services from Direct Care (Tameside). All the staff we spoke with during our inspection shared the registered managers passion and commitment to providing person centred care.

The service had notified CQC of any accidents, serious incidents, and safeguarding allegations as they are required to do. The provider had displayed the CQC rating and report from the last inspection on their website and in the office.