We carried out a review of the data available to us about Advantage Healthcare - Tees Valley 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 Advantage Healthcare - Tees Valley, you can give feedback on this service.
Advantage Healthcare – Tees Valley is a domiciliary care agency. The service provides personal and nursing care to children, young people and adults living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection 17 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and or who are autistic.
Right Support: Staff supported people to be fully inclusive in society. Care plans were detailed to support staff in delivering care and support safely. Information from external healthcare professionals was used to create risk assessments and care plans. Staff supported people to access external healthcare professionals when needed. The provider gathered information about people’s communication needs.
Right Care: People received person-centred care. Staff worked with people to achieve their set goals. The provider promoted a positive, person-centred culture. The registered manager and staff put people’s needs and wishes at the heart of everything they did. The provider had systems in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and harm. Environmental and individual risks were identified and managed.
Right Culture: People were encouraged to take control of all aspects of their lives, including education, shopping and looking after their homes. The registered manager and nursing team were passionate about providing quality care. The provider had a strong oversight of the service. The registered manager critically reviewed the service to determine how further improvements could be made.
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 20 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. We undertook this focused inspection to see if the service had improved from requires improvement to good. This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions of Responsive and Well-led.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. 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 Advantage Healthcare – Tees Valley on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Interserve Healthcare – Tees Valley is a domiciliary care agency. The service provides personal care to children, young people and adults living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection 17 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Significant improvements had been made to people’s safety and wellbeing since the last inspection. The provider had recruited a registered manager who had made a positive impact on the staff morale and service culture. This had led to children, young people and adults experiencing better care and feelings of wellbeing.
The service provided was much more reliable. However, there were times when calls had not been covered. This had not placed people at risk of harm as parents and relatives had stepped into provide support, but this had impacted on parents and relatives wellbeing. The provider was rolling out permanent contracts to staff to improve staff retention and reliability.
Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver care and support in a person-centred way. Where there were gaps in training this had been identified by the registered manager. Staff were caring and understood people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. They worked with people to ensure they received support how they wanted it.
There were systems in place for the management of medicines. However, sometimes there was a delay in returning medicine records to the service for checking, which meant there could be a delay in picking up on any errors.
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 applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
The provider was open and approachable which enabled people to share their views and raise concerns. People told us if they were worried about anything they would be comfortable to talk with staff or the registered manager.
The provider monitored quality, acted quickly when change was required, sought people's views and planned ongoing improvements.
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 21 November 2018) and found two breaches in regulations. 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. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to children, young people and adults living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection 29 people were using the service.
At the last inspected the service on 24 May 2016 and rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the service had deteriorated and rated the service as requires improvement. We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014
At the time of the inspection the service did not have 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.
The service provided by Interserve Healthcare - Tees Valley was not reliable. There were not enough care and nursing staff who were adequately trained to support all children, young people and adults who used the service. Calls to people were often cancelled at last minute or didn’t take place at all which meant parents and relatives had needed to step in and provide care. This had not only impacted on children, young people and adults but also the parents, relatives and other siblings.
We looked at the staff training chart and found most training for staff was up to date. However, people who used the service had very individual needs and staff needed specialist training in areas such as tracheostomy care. This training also involved competency assessments to make sure staff followed safe practice. Staff competency assessments were not up to date and this was one of the reasons why people had been let down and their calls uncovered. Most of the competency assessments were undertaken by nurses employed at the service, however there had only been one nurse for some time and they had not been able to undertake all competencies as they had other responsibilities.
Staff were not encouraged or supported to gain further qualifications such as the diploma in health and social care. Staff supervisions and were not up to date for all staff. Supervision is a process, usually a meeting, by which an organisation provides guidance and support to staff.
For those people lacking in capacity, health and social care professionals, staff and relatives had been involved in making best interest decisions for people, however there were no decision specific mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions available within peoples care records.
Parents and relatives told us they did not think the service was well led and heavily criticised office staff for their poor communication. Senior staff had carried out a number of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service. Quality assurance and governance processes are systems that help providers to assess the safety and quality of their services, ensuring they provide people with a good service and meet appropriate quality standards and legal obligations. However, these had been ineffective as they had failed to pick up on areas of concern that we had identified during the inspection.
Staff understood the procedure they needed to follow if they suspected abuse might be taking place. Medicines were managed safely with an effective system in place.
Staff were aware of the action to take to manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service but, we found some risk assessments to be generic. However, we did find detailed information within people’s care plans on how to keep them safe.
We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Some people using the service received support with food and nutrition. Where this was the case people’s dietary needs and preferences were recorded in their care plan, along with any specialist diets or recommendations from dieticians or speech and language therapists.
Staff told us the importance of promoting dignity and respect. The expectation of a caring and person-centred approach to people was made clear to staff at interview and induction, and was reinforced through training. Staff told us the importance of ensuring people were supported to retain as much of their independence as possible.
Policies and procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints. However, on some occasions the action taken on receipt of the complaint or follow up had not been recorded.
At the time of our inspection nobody was receiving end of life care. However, with the support of other health care professionals people could remain at the home at the end of their life and receive appropriate care and treatment.
Interserve Healthcare - Tees Valley is a domiciliary care service providing personal and nursing care to people within their own home. The service support adults and children with complex health and support needs. The service employs nurses to plan and monitor personal care. At the time of the inspection 27 people were using the service, most of whom were children.
The service had a registered manager. 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 and their relatives said the service provided safe care. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce the chances of them occurring. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current support needs. Accidents and incidents were investigated and recorded to see if remedial action was necessary.
There were procedures in place to safely support people with medicines. Staff had access to a medicines policy, which provided detailed guidance on medicines management. Details of the medicines people used and how they should be supported with them were clearly recorded in their care plans and medicine administration records (MARs).
Policies and procedures were in place to investigate safeguarding incidents. Staff were familiar with safeguarding issues and said they would be confident to raise any concerns they had. Staff were also confident to whistle blow on any concerns they had.
Staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely and staffing levels were considered before new care packages were accepted. Recruitment policies and procedures minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
There was a business continuity plan in place to help ensure a continuity of care in emergency situations that disrupted the service. People receiving 24 hour care had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEP) in place. Staff and the people they supported told us they were provided with all of the equipment they needed to support people safely, such as gloves and aprons.
Staff received mandatory training in areas including health and safety, safeguarding, manual handling, basic life support and medicine administration. Staff also received training to support people with the particular support needs they had, such as spinal injuries or PEG.
Staff said they received the training they needed to support people effectively and would be confident to request additional training. Newly recruited staff completed an induction programme before being allowed to support people on their own. Staff were supported through regular supervisions and appraisals.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood the principles of the MCA and could describe how they ensure they had people’s consent to provide care and support.
People who used the service received support with food and nutrition. Nutrition care plans were in place setting out their support needs and dietary preferences. People were supported to access external professionals to maintain and promote their health.
People and their relatives spoke positively about the care they received. Staff said they were able to spend quality time with the people they supported and enjoyed getting to know them.
People and their relatives told us they were treated with respect and their dignity was protected by staff. Staff told us how they helped to protect people’s dignity and put them at ease when assisting with personal care.
There was an advocacy policy in place but at the time of the inspection no one was using an advocate. At the time of the inspection no one was receiving end of life care. The registered manager was able to describe how this would be arranged should it be necessary.
People’s care and support was based on their assessed needs and preferences. Care plans were then produced to cover people’s support needs. Where people had a specific support need an individual care plan was produced. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current needs and preferences. People and their relatives told us they were involved in developing their care plans and felt able to request changes to them.
Some people received support to access and participate in activities as part of their care package. Where this was the case people’s activity preferences were recorded in their care plans along with guidance to staff on how they could be supported to access them.
Procedures were in place to investigate complaints, and people and their relatives were familiar with these.
Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager, who they described as supportive.
Staff meetings took place, and staff said they were free to raise any issues or support needs they had.
The registered manager oversaw a number of quality assurance checks to monitor and improve standards at the service. Where issues were identified they were logged on an action plan until they were resolved. The registered provider also carried out quality assurance checks at the service.
The registered provider sought people’s feedback on the service using questionnaires every three months.
The registered manager understood their role and responsibilities, and was able to describe the notifications they were required to make to the Commission.