We carried out a review of the data available to us about New Dawn Care Agency Ltd 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 New Dawn Care Agency Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
New Dawn Care Agency Limited is a domiciliary care agency. The service provides personal care to adults with physical disabilities, dementia, and sensory impairments. At the time of our inspection 24 people were receiving personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. In this service, the Care Quality Commission can only inspect the service received by people who get support with personal care. This includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people receive such support, we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe in their homes with the support staff provided.
Lessons had been learned from the previous inspection and medicines were now being safely managed by trained staff. Systems were in place to identify errors for swift action to be taken.
There were enough suitably trained staff who were recruited safely.
Management were keen to make further improvements for better outcomes for people, staff and the service. Management were open and honest; they understood their roles as well as how to manage risks and their regulatory responsibilities. People and staff had confidence in the registered manager.
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.
The service worked in partnership with other professionals to achieve good outcomes for people.
The provider was proactive in its recruitment campaign and was promoting staff retention through engagement with various organisations and wellbeing initiatives.
For more information, please read the detailed findings section of this report. If you are reading this as a separate summary, the full report can be found on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (23 July 2019).
At our last inspection we found breaches of the regulations in relation to medicines not always being safely managed. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to tell us what they would do and by when to improve.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was now meeting this regulation.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
New Dawn Care Agency Ltd is a domiciliary care agency that was providing personal care to 50 older people, people living with a dementia and people with physical disabilities at the time of our inspection.
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.
People’s experience of using this service
Medicines were not always managed safely. Risks to people were assessed and addressed. Staffing levels were safe. People were safeguarded from abuse.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff were supported with regular training, supervision and appraisal.
People and relatives said staff were kind and caring and spoke positively about the support they provided. People were supported to maintain their independence.
Care was person-centred. Staff effectively communicated with people to ensure their voice was heard. The provider had effective complaints procedures in place.
Feedback was sought and acted on. The service worked effectively in partnership with external professionals and agencies.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
Good (report published October 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned visit under our inspection programme.
Enforcement
We have identified breaches in relation to medicine management. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
The inspection of this service took place on 31 August 2016 and was announced.
There was a registered manager in post who was present at the time of the office visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, registered managers 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 felt well supported by staff from the agency, who met their needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any risks, problems or potential signs of abuse. Risks were assessed and managed safely. People were supported to take their medicines and the provider had systems in place to enable staff to do this safely.
People were supported by staff who had sufficient time to carry out tasks required of them and people enjoyed flexible and responsive support. Staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices.
Staff had the skills and knowledge to understand and support people’s individual needs. They received training and support when they started working for the agency and their skills were kept up to date through regular training. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and their colleagues and communication at all levels was effective.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and worked well as a team to ensure people’s needs were met effectively. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff promoted and respected people’s rights and recognised the balance between protecting people and enabling them to make their own decisions and choices.
People were supported to prepare food and drink if required. Staff worked with health professionals when required to ensure people’s health and wellbeing.
People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. People had developed positive working relationships based on trust and mutual respect. Staff were aware of people’s individual preferences and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff promoted people’s independence wherever possible.
People received a responsive service that met their individual needs. Staff worked flexibly to meet people’s needs and responded to people’s changing circumstances to ensure their ongoing safety and support.
People were asked if they were satisfied with the service received. There were systems in place to ensure that people’s views and opinions were heard and their wishes acted upon. There was a complaints procedure in place that people were aware of. People preferred an informal approach to sharing concerns. Staff and managers were keen to resolve issues informally wherever possible.
The registered manager provided good leadership. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. The providers were keen to learn from experiences and continually improve and expand the service provided.
During this inspection we found there had been improvements since our last visit.
People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. They told us staff were, 'Top notch' and the agency, 'Do what they say they're going to do'. Relatives stated, 'They're wonderful' and 'They keep me updated with what's going on'.
We found improvements had been made in the way the agency assessed and monitored the quality of the service they provided. However, they acknowledged they still had work to do.
We saw improvements the agency had made in relation to information recorded and held on people and care workers.
Most care plans provided staff with instructions on how people preferred their care needs to be met. People told us they or their relative were involved in the assessment process and planning their care.
The agency had some procedures in place to make sure that only suitable staff were employed. However, we found some deficiencies in these processes.
Care workers told us they were supported to carry out their role and were provided with training opportunities to keep people safe and meet their needs.
The provider had did not have effective systems in place for managing risk and for monitoring the quality of the service.
Records were not well maintained to ensure the safe and effective running of the service.
People told us they felt fully involved with the assessment of their needs and planning for their care. They considered care workers had a good understanding of their individual needs and preferences. They told us staff treated them with respect and listened to them. Staff were able to share examples of how they respected people's privacy and dignity, promoted their independence and how they gave people choices.
People said they felt safe in the presence of their care workers. One person commented, 'I enjoy their company and definitely feel safe having them in my home'. Staff knew that they had a duty of care to take appropriate action to protect vulnerable people and knew the procedure to follow to report any concerns.
People were complimentary about their care workers. One person described their care workers as, 'pleasant and caring'. People considered staff were skilled in their work. Not all staff had received training to understand the specific health conditions of the people they supported.
The agency ensured that people's views were considered and listened to and they had systems in place to monitor the care provided. All the people we spoke with expressed their satisfaction with the service they or their relative received. One person said, 'We are really pleased with them, they are very attentive and look after our relative well.'