New York Care Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care

Updated 18 November 2021

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

Two inspectors and one Expert by Experience conducted the inspection. 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 home.

The service had a manager registered with CQC. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the provider a short period of notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure there would be staff available at the office to assist with the inspection and make arrangements for us to telephone people who used the service.

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. We used all of this information to plan our inspection. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return before this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection

The provider sent us some documentation before the first site visit. We then visited the location's office twice and spoke with five care staff (known as care givers) over the telephone. An Expert by Experience spoke with eight people who used the service and relatives.

At the office, we spoke with the registered manager, the nominated individual and seven other staff, including schedulers, administrators, an assistant care manager and the operations director. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We looked at records related to people’s care and the management of the service. We viewed four people’s care plans, daily notes and medicine records, and aspects of five other people’s care records. We reviewed four staff recruitment and induction files, training and supervision information, and a range of records used to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found and had a video call with the nominated individual. We received feedback via email from professionals who have contact with the service.

Updated 18 November 2021

About the service:

New York Care Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care service providing care and support to people with a range of support needs living in their own homes. There were 68 people being supported with personal care at the time of our inspection.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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 and what we found:

People continued to receive an extremely caring service from staff who were very motivated to deliver a highly compassionate, high-quality service. Care staff were very sensitive to people’s needs and treated them with the upmost dignity and respect. Staff built positive, trusting relationships with the people they cared for and were also very sensitive to the needs of the whole family. There was a very strong focus on staff support and well-being, which helped promote a positive, person-centred culture and motivated the staff team. Staff went above and beyond to meet people’s needs and fulfil their wishes.

There were enough staff to provide a consistent, reliable service. Staff assessed and mitigated risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People received care from staff who were well trained and knowledgeable. Where it was part of people’s care package, staff prepared meals and drinks to support people in maintaining a good diet. Staff were proactive in promoting good nutrition and hydration. Staff were attentive to changes in people’s health and wellbeing, and worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s holistic needs were met.

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. Staff sought people’s consent and were very respectful of people’s choices and wishes.

People had a comprehensive care plan with information about their needs and preferences, so staff knew how to support them. Staff were responsive to changes in people’s needs and adapted their supported accordingly. People received support to access social and leisure opportunities. The provider had been proactive in encouraging people to re-build their confidence in going out in the community again following the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

Staff provided compassionate end of life care. They built positive relationships with specialist services to access advice, practical support and keep up to date with best practice.

People, their relatives and external professionals were very satisfied with the service. There was a clear emphasis on continual improvement, and the provider had invested in a number of new systems since our last inspection. The provider had a quality assurance system, which included promptly checking and reviewing all care and medicine records. This system was generally robust, but we found some areas which could be more effective. This included identifying and addressing some recording issues in relating to the Mental Capacity Act and medicines.

The provider was very proactive in working with other agencies and stakeholders, for the benefit of people using the service and the wider community. This included participating in research projects and sharing information, resources and best practice.

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 Outstanding (published 3 November 2018).

Why we inspected:

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.

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.