The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Next Generation Healthcare Limited - Derby

Unit 4 Stadium Business Court, Millenium Way, Pride Park, Derby, Derbyshire, DE24 8HP (01332) 345621

Provided and run by:
SENAD Community Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

17, 26 September 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 35 people using the service at the time of our inspection visit, of which seven people were receiving personal care. We spoke with, five care staff, one professional and two family members.

Family members of people using the service were happy with the care and support their relative received. Comments included 'the package is going really well, x has made significant progress with support from the staff' and 'we are very pleased with the care, the carers listen and understand my relative's needs.'

We saw that people's needs were assessed, and support plans were in place. This meant they received support in a way that met their needs.

The service worked well with other professional disciplines to provide personalised care packages to each person. This included working with case managers, neuropsychologists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists.

Family members and a professional we spoke with raised no concerns about the skills of staff. They told us 'I am very happy with the care provided by the agency,' 'the carers are excellent, working to high standards' and 'the carers have the necessary skills and experience to support x.'

We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, and make improvements where required ensuring the service was run safely.

6, 7 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people whose relatives use the service. One person was 'absolutely delighted' with the service provided. They both told us they had been fully involved in planning their relative's care. They said the service was flexible and accommodated changes to visit times or additional visits whenever possible. Both relatives were confident in the ability of care workers. People were supported by a small team of staff, which provided continuity and consistency.

We saw that new documentation had been introduced in the care records. People's needs were assessed, and care pathways developed from the needs assessment. The level of detail contained within the care plans varied from very detailed to none specific, for example 'support as required'.

The people whose care records we looked at did not require support with medication. However, we saw a detailed plan was in place for one person, at the request of their relative, so staff would know how to give medication if the relative was unavailable. Staff told us they received medication training, and they were supervised giving medication, to check their competency.

We saw that there was an effective recruitment and selection process in place.

We found that although the required records were in place, not all records were fit for purpose and accurate. For example, not all care plans were detailed, supervision records were not available for all staff, and regular audits were not carried out.

9 February 2012

During a routine inspection

We listened to what people had to say about their involvement in the care and support they received. People we spoke with told us how they were supported with their lives. People told us they were involved in developing their support plans, as well as their weekly activity plans. One person told us they received a 'Very good service' and they were involved in reviewing their support plan. This person told us the support workers 'Know my needs and look after me well.'

One relative told us the service provided 'Excellent quality care.' and it was 'Absolutely superb.' They told us they 'Couldn't ask for better carers.' They told us the person receiving a service had 'blossomed' with the support that was provided by the dedicated care team. One relative told us the person 'Had progressed with the support provided.' Relatives told us they were involved in reviewing the support plans where appropriate, and any issues raised would be dealt with.

People who used the service and their relatives were given a monthly rota, so they knew which support workers would be providing care and support and when. They told us they were always told if a different support worker would be coming, but changes to the planned rota were rare.

One relative told us they had experienced some difficulties with their rota, as there were discrepancies between the rota they had, and the rota the support workers had. This had resulted in either two support workers arriving or none at all.

We asked people who used the service and/or their families if they thought support workers had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Most people and their families told us they thought support workers were able to meet their needs. One relative told us they didn't think all the support workers had the skills to meet the person's needs, especially around de-escalation techniques to manage behaviour that challenged.

We asked people who used the service and their relatives about their involvement in their care and the running of the service. Relatives told us the service provided a dedicated team of support workers, recruited specifically for their care package. They told us they had been involved in the recruitment of support workers for their particular care package.