Shine Care Limited North East Office

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe as staff were knowledgeable and aware of people’s individual needs. All staff could identify signs of possible abuse and neglect and knew how to report such concerns. Risk was managed on an individualised basis and assessments provided staff with clear guidance.

Staff were carefully chosen by the registered manager based on their skills and experience and provided consistent care teams for people. However, the recruitment checks needed to be more thorough and the registered manager agreed to implement this. Staff were supported through regular supervision and training and had experienced mentors.

Medication was administered safely and staff had their competency checked. Infection control practice was effective and staff displayed a good understanding of all measures needed to reduce the likelihood of harm.

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 was person-centred and all support was based on detailed, multi-disciplinary assessments.

Care documentation was informative and assisted staff to care for people safely and to ensure people developed their skills and independence as much as possible. There was good evidence of working with other groups to ensure people had the widest opportunities.

Staff felt supported and the registered manager was very knowledgeable. The provider offered regular support through recognising achievements. The service had developed by considering each person’s merits and this vision continued with staff. There was strong culture of listening and adapting the service based on people’s needs and wishes. Staff felt able to share their ideas and these were implemented wherever possible.

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 8 December 2016)

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.

The last full inspection took place on 2 and 3 July 2014, when we found the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

Shine Care provides personal care and support to people living in their own home based on their individual needs. Shine Care provides their service to people within the vicinity of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. They are currently providing a domiciliary care service to one person who they have been supporting for three and a half years.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 same staff, who were recruited when the service first started, were still working with the person who used the service. They had received appropriate training and told us how well they worked as a team. Staffing levels were based on the needs of the person to keep them safe.

The registered manager and staff had completed training in respect of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood their responsibilities under the Act.

We found detailed care plans were in place and staff followed these to ensure the person who used the service received the right care and support and was kept safe. This included support with daily living, healthcare, nutrition, personal care and making sure they got their medicines at the right times.

The relative, other professionals and staff we spoke with told us how the consistent care and support and dedication of staff had improved the life of the person who used the service.

The relative we spoke with did not have any concerns about the service but knew how to raise any concerns if they needed to.

The registered manager and staff were committed to providing a personalised, individual service. Various audits were in place to make sure standards were maintained or improved. We saw from their comments the service was held in high regard from other professionals involved with them .

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found -

Is the service safe?

We looked at the person's care record and found they had a care plan and risk assessment which covered their needs.

Staff we spoke with informed us they had received bespoke training at the hospital where the person who used the service was, prior to moving into their own home. Both members of staff felt the training provided was good.

Is the service effective?

The person's care was managed within the framework of the Care Programme Approach (CPA). This framework was introduced in 1990 as a mechanism for managing people with severe mental health problems which included people with learning disabilities and mental illness or severe behavioural problems. As part of the CPA, care plans were required to be agreed and updated through a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals.

Both members of staff commented they had seen an improvement in the person since the care package commenced. For example, the person's behaviours had decreased and their speech and language had improved. This was confirmed by the registered manager and the person's social worker.

Is the service caring?

The person's relative confirmed their family member was offered choices and was involved in activities. The relative commented: 'The activities are governed by what [my relative] wants and how he feels.'

We spoke with two members of staff who gave good examples of how they treated the person who used the service with dignity and respect and how they involved them in their care. For example, they told us they listened to what the person wanted. They also said they encouraged the person to be as independent as possible by involving them in day to day tasks. Staff also used objects of reference to encourage the person to choose activities they wanted to do. For example, visit a sensory room, go walking or go on a car journey.

Is the service responsive?

The person's needs had been thoroughly assessed by a team of healthcare professionals before they moved into their own home.

The care records showed the person's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes. The person had access to activities which were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their relatives.

Is the service well-led?

We spoke to the registered manager regarding the audits used to assess and monitor the quality of service people received. Audits were carried out on areas such as: the environment, medication and the welfare of the service user. We saw documentary evidence which confirmed this. This information was fed into an action plan where areas for improvement were identified.

The service provided was also monitored by a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals through the CPA. We saw the minutes of the meeting held in March 2014 which confirmed this.

The provider may find it useful to note that during inspection, due to the IT system, we had difficulty accessing the records we required. Following the inspection, the registered manager informed us a new 'server' had been purchased to resolve the issues identified.