We carried out a review of the data available to us about Carers Trust Tyne and Wear 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 Carers Trust Tyne and Wear, you can give feedback on this service.
The Carers Trust Tyne and Wear provides personal care and support to adults and children living in the community. The service is contracted to provide up to 400 hours per week by the local council. Additional contractual arrangements are in place and people can contract directly with the service to meet their needs. At the time of our inspection there were 153 people using the service. This included people with learning and physical disabilities, dementia and mental health needs as well as children and young people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff knew people very well and understood their needs. Risks to people and staff were well managed. Staff were clear on how to report any safeguarding concerns to their manager. The provider did not always follow best practice guidance in the management of medicines. We made a recommendation about this.
Pre-employment checks were carried out to check if staff were suitable to work in the service. Staff were supported through a period of induction, training and staff meetings. The provider was reviewing the training to make sure all staff received a broad range of training to meet people’s needs.
Staff worked closely with other professionals to promote people’s health and wellbeing. Advice from health professionals had been followed.
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.
Staff had assessed the decision-making capacity of children and young people and understood how young people communicated their wishes and feelings.
Staff supported people to be as independent as possible and respected their choices. Relatives felt they had been listened to and were involved in the service. They told us staff were very caring.
People received person centred care. Care records provided individual detailed information about people which supported staff to deliver care to meet each person's particular needs.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. Staff were very positive about their roles and felt managers listened to them. Relatives told us they had no complaints and found the managers approachable.
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 18 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
This inspection took place on 17 and 20 July 2017, and was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of this inspection because the service is a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure there was someone in the office available to assist with the inspection.
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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
The provider had a robust recruitment process in place to ensure only appropriate people were offered employment.
The service ensured that sufficient hours were negotiated with the commissioning authority to ensure the person’s and their carers’ needs could be met safely. The provider used an electronic system to plan and produce rota’s for people and staff which took into account staff sickness and holidays to ensure continuity.
Systems were in place to identify, assess and manage individual risks to people. Risks to people were identified during the initial assessment process. Control measures were in place for staff support and guidance. Environmental risks also formed part of the initial assessment process. Risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis.
Staff had received training in safeguarding and the implications of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and were aware of their responsibilities.
People’s medicines were mainly administered by their carers. Where care plans identified medicine were to be administered by staff we found these were managed safely. Staff were appropriately trained and had their competency to administer medicines checked regularly.
Staff received a robust induction which included shadowing a more experienced care support worker when commencing their role.
Training the provider deemed essential was up to date. For example, moving and assisting. Staff also attended training sessions on more specific subjects to meet the needs of the people using the service, such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy training (PEG). A PEG is a tube which is passed into a person’s stomach to provide a means of providing nutrition when oral intake is not adequate.
Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and annual appraisals to discuss performance and personal development. We found care coordinators undertook spot checks to observe staff were supporting people appropriately.
Staff supported people with their nutritional needs where necessary. Health care needs were acknowledged and support gained from health care professionals when required.
Consultations took place with people and their carers to develop plans of support. Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly.
People’s social and leisure needs were met with staff supporting people to access the local community and amenities.
We saw that systems were in place for recording and managing safeguarding concerns, complaints, accidents and incidents.
The service sent out annual surveys to people to gain their opinions and views on the service. We found several compliments cards outlining peoples and their carer’s satisfaction with the service they had received.
The provider had systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service.
Staff told us they felt the manager was open and approachable. Regular meetings were in place for staff to raised concerns and issues, on a regular basis. Personal records were held in line with Data Protection. The provider maintained notice boards containing information and guidance for carers and staff members.
Gateshead Crossroads Caring for Carers is a registered charity. It provides a domiciliary care service which offers personal care to people in their own homes, with the primary aim of providing short-term respite for carers. It also provides four beds for the short-term respite accommodation of people who need personal care. The service is available to both adults and children with a range of physical and mental health needs. At the time of this inspection 165 people were using the service.
This inspection took place over three days on 2, 3 and 15 December 2014. The first visit was unannounced. This service was last inspected in November 2013, at which time we found no breaches of legal requirements.
A registered manager was in post, having been registered in June 2011. 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 aim of the service was to provide support to family carers by enabling them to take breaks from their full time carer responsibilities, secure in the knowledge that support workers would replicate the care they gave as closely as possible. To achieve this, the needs of people were carefully assessed before any service was started, to ensure those needs could be fully met. People using the service, their families, and any professionals already supporting the person were fully involved in this process.
Detailed plans were drawn up to meet each person’s individual needs and wishes, and these were regularly evaluated to make sure they remained appropriate and effective. People told us they felt their care and welfare needs were consistently met, and that they received very good person-centred care.
The service always ensured that sufficient hours were negotiated with the commissioning agency to allow for the person’s and carers’ needs to be met safely and in an unrushed manner. People using the service told us both the organisation and its support workers were flexible and were accommodating in changing the support offered to fit in with their needs and preferences.
Good systems were in place to keep people using the service safe from harm. Carer support workers had been trained to recognise and report any actual or suspected abuse. They were knowledgeable about their responsibilities in this important area, and took them seriously. People using the service told us they felt very safe when their support workers were in their homes.
People being supported were offered suitable assistance with eating and drinking, where this was an agreed part of their care package. Staff followed the written guidance of family carers regarding a person’s nutrition, and were given training in any specialist techniques needed to carry this out safely.
Support workers closely monitored people’s health needs, where this was required, and acted in accordance with detailed instructions from the family carers.
Support workers provided occasional support to a small number of people with their medicines. New processes were being implemented to check that staff were fully competent to provide this support safely. A recommendation is made about the auditing of medicines.
People using the service spoke very highly of the skills and knowledge of their support workers and told us they were treated with care and respect at all times. They said their privacy and dignity were protected by their workers.
People told us they were regularly asked for their views about the service they received, in the form of annual surveys, telephone calls from the office and in formal reviews of their care. People said they felt listened to and able to influence the content and organisation of their support. They told us any concerns or queries raised with the service were taken seriously and responded to pleasantly and professionally. People we spoke with told us they had ever had to make a complaint. We saw only one complaint had been logged by the service in the previous year.
The service supported people in accessing their local community and tried to match its support workers to the person requiring support, in terms of hobbies, interests and personalities, where this was possible.
The registered manager demonstrated clear leadership and ensured there was an open and positive culture in the service. The management structure was being reviewed to allow the registered manager to concentrate more on the regulated activities provided by the service.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and were proud of the quality of care they provided. They said they were happy working in the service, and that they felt supported and respected by the management team. Health and social care professionals we spoke with commented very favourably on the quality of both the care provided and the management of the service.
Feedback received from carers and from people requiring care was all very positive. Carer comments included, 'I get an excellent service. I rely on them. It means I can sleep without worrying' and, 'They are a Godsend. I couldn't manage without them.'
All care given by support workers was agreed with the carer and, where possible, the person requiring the care. Detailed care plans, drawn up with the carer, gave clear directions to the support workers in how the person's care was to be given.
Arrangements for assisting or administering people's prescribed medicines were clear and appropriate, and staff had been given the necessary training.
The service had robust systems in place to make sure that no unsuitable people were employed as support workers.
People were encouraged to raise any concerns or complaints they might have, and were offered support to do this. However, people using the service told us they had no complaints, and felt they were listened to by the manager, office staff and carer support workers.
People told us that they felt respected and involved in their care. One relative said, "The care has been totally planned around us. When the staff first started coming I sat down with them and told them everything I normally did, and they wrote it all up and that is the care that we receive."
We reviewed seven care records and saw that people's preferences and care needs had been well documented. We spoke with three members of staff. Staff were knowledgeable about the care needs of the people who used the service and what they should do to support them.
People told us the service was reliable, that staff always arrived on time and never missed any appointments.
We found that staff received appropriate professional development and there was an effective system in place to make sure staff training was up to date so that staff could care for people safely and to an appropriate standard. People told us that all of the staff who visited them were well trained, one person said, "All of the carer workers are very good. They all know what they are doing."