We carried out a review of the data available to us about Blyth Valley Disabled Forum 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 Blyth Valley Disabled Forum, you can give feedback on this service.
Blyth Valley Disabled Forum is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. Services are provided to people with a wide range of needs, including people living with a dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 244 people receiving care and support, of which 204 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 and what we found
People were protected from the risk of infection. Government guidance was being followed and staff understood how to safely put on, take off and dispose of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Risks had been identified and steps taken to minimise and manage those risks.
Medicines records were completed in full and staff had attended the required training to support them to administer medicines safely. Staff had completed updated training on infection prevention and control, and safeguarding.
New quality assurance systems and audits had been introduced to assess, monitor and where required, improve the quality and safety of the service. We have made a recommendation about fully embedding the system.
People told us they felt safe and were supported by a small group of staff who they generally knew well. Staff said they were well supported and found the management team to be approachable.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection (and update)
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 25 January 2021)
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Blyth Valley Disabled Forum on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
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 and what we found
People were not protected from the risk of infection because government guidance and safe infection prevention and control processes were not being followed. Risks had been identified, however, measures to minimise the risks to people had not always been documented. People did not receive their medicines in a safe manner due to documentation not being completed or kept up to date.
Quality assurance systems were not robust enough to assess monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. The concerns noted during this inspection had not been identified by the provider.
There were enough staff to support people safely, and staff told us how supportive they were as a team and had pulled together to cover any staff absences.
People, and their relatives were very happy with the care and support they received. Comments included, “I feel very safe” and “They are very helpful, anything I ask for I get.”
Staff told us they felt well supported and could contact the office at any time if they had any concerns.
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 9 January 2018).
Why we inspected
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about a possible failure to notify the Commission of certain changes, events and incidents affecting the service or the people who use it. Subsequently, we also became aware of a specific incident involving a serious injury which is being dealt with outside of the inspection process.
This inspection was a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. As part of CQC's response to the coronavirus pandemic, we also included a review of infection control and prevention measures as part of this inspection under the Safe key question.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection. We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe and well led sections of this report.
You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Blyth Valley Disabled Forum on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Enforcement
We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and discharge our regulatory enforcement functions to keep people safe, and to hold providers to account, where it is necessary for us to do so.
We have identified breaches in relation to preventing and controlling infection, risk management, medicines, governance and notification of incidents.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service was last inspected by CQC on 12 and 13 August 2015, at which time it was rated good. At this inspection the service remained good.
BVDF is a domiciliary care provider and is registered to provide personal care to people who live in their own homes. The service provides care for people living in Blyth and the surrounding area. There were 250 people using the service at the time of our inspection.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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 who used the service told us they felt safe, whilst relatives and external professionals raised no concerns about people’s safety.
Staff had received appropriate medicines and safeguarding training and demonstrated their knowledge during the inspection.
A lone worker policy was in place and staff felt supported and safe. An out-of-hours phone number was in place for staff.
Environmental and person-specific risks were initially assessed and reviewed regularly.
There were sufficient numbers of staff were on duty to meet the needs of people who used the service. Care visits were planned by a team of co-ordinators and missed calls were extremely rare. Rota planning did not always factor in travel time, meaning there were on occasion small delays experienced by people. We have made a recommendation about rota planning.
Pre-employment checks such as with the Disclosure and Barring Service were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with potentially vulnerable people.
Training included safeguarding, moving and handling, infection control, health and safety, first aid and dementia awareness. The induction was sufficiently detailed and gave staff a grounding in the provider’s policies as well as best practice.
Staff liaised well with external healthcare professionals to support people when their needs or preferences changed.
People who used the service confirmed their consent was sought at all stages of care and that they were involved in the care planning process. Care plans were regularly reviewed and people and their relatives confirmed they were involved. Care documentation however did not always clearly record whether people had consented to the care plan which was in place.
People who used the service, relatives and healthcare professionals told us staff were caring, compassionate and treated people with dignity, respect and sensitivity.
People who used the service and staff confirmed they received generally good levels of continuity and that they were given a rota each week so they knew who would be visiting them.
Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and displayed a good understanding of presuming capacity and communicating well with people to ensure they were able to make their preferences and interests known.
Staff were well supported through regular supervisions, appraisals and ad hoc support by care co-ordinators and the managers of the service.
People who used the service and healthcare professionals told us staff were accommodating to people’s changing needs and preferences, for instance late changes to visit times.
People who used the service knew how to complain should the need arise and we saw this information was provided to all people who began using the service. Where a complaint had been made it had been responded to comprehensively.
The registered manager, deputy manager and care co-ordinators were described in positive terms by people who used the service and care staff.
We found auditing and quality assurance systems required improvement, with insufficient managerial oversight of completed care records. Other systems were in place to scrutinise staff practice, such as unannounced spot checks. We have made a recommendation about auditing.
Morale amongst staff was good and the culture was an open one where the management listened to staff and acted on suggestions or concerns.
Blyth Valley Disabled Forum is a domiciliary care service, providing care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service provided care to around 270 people.
We carried out this announced inspection on 12 and 13 August 2015. At the last inspection of this service, in November 2013, we found the provider was meeting all of the regulations we inspected.
A registered manager was in place. 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 told us they felt safe with staff from the service. Staff had undertaken training in how to recognise and respond to any potential abuse. Procedures were in place to protect people from financial abuse.
There were enough staff to carry out the visits to people’s homes. People told us staff were reliable and punctual. A recruitment and selection policy was in place, but this had not always been followed, as some staff files we reviewed contained only one reference.
Processes were in place to manage medicines appropriately and we observed staff wearing personal protective equipment to minimise the spread of infection.
People told us staff were sufficiently skilled to care for them and meet their needs. Staff training was monitored and kept up to date. Staff were given opportunities to further develop their skills and knowledge. Staff met with their manager regularly in supervisions sessions and their conduct was monitored through observations.
Whilst the manager told us that all of the people supported by the service had the capacity to make their own decisions, she was aware of the process which should be followed if this was not the case.
People told us staff were friendly and considerate. They told us staff went out of their way to provide them with a quality service. People were given information about what to expect from the service and were provided with details on a weekly basis as to which staff would attend their visits.
Care records were specific and included people’s preferences and choices.
People’s needs had been assessed to determine the support they needed. Their needs were monitored to ensure they received the right care. People told us the service was responsive to any changes in the service that they requested, such as changing the times of their visits.
People told us their care was usually carried out by a small team of care workers who knew them well. They told us when their usual staff were unavailable, staff who carried out their personal care were aware of the support they required.
Complaints had been recorded, investigated and responded to. People were encouraged to share their feedback through a yearly survey.
People told us the office was well managed and efficient. In addition to the registered manager there were a team of staff in place to ensure smooth operating of the service. People and staff told us they were always able to contact the office whenever they needed to.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service which was provided. Audits and checks were carried out on care records. Observations and monitoring visits were regularly held in people’s own home to ensure staff practice was appropriate and that people were happy with the service they received.
Staff and people who used the service were represented on a forum in place to discuss future developments of the service and to suggest improvements.
We also spoke with a number of health and social care professionals to find out their opinions of the service. These included a team leader from Northumbria Healthcare's care management service, a district nurse, a support planner from Northumbria Healthcare and a ward manager from a local hospital. All were very complimentary about the service.
People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.
People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.
There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.
We did not speak to any people who used the service at this visit.
We were satisfied people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because appropriate records were maintained.
We saw some records contained insufficient information about the support provided to individuals. The lack of detail in records can mean people are at risk of receiving inappropriate care. We spoke to the manager about this and they agreed to address this. People were treated with respect and were involved in making choices about their care and treatment. They were supported to maintain their independence.
Staff were well supported by the provider and had appropriate opportunities to access training relevant to their roles. People were given information about the provider's complaints procedures and felt their comments and complaints were listened to and acted on.