Comfort Call Newcastle provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

A registered manager was 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.

People told us they were supported to be as independent as possible. There were opportunities for people to have social experiences and build new friendships. Everyone we spoke to was complimentary about the staff team, both in their skills but also in their approach and friendliness.

We saw care documentation was clear and concise and documented people’s needs, preferences and how to deliver their care safely. The provider had a robust system of auditing so that regular checks were completed and all care documents were reviewed on a monthly basis.

Staff advised they supported by the management team both through supervisions and appraisals but also in the managements approach.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

The provider had a clear of vision of the service they wanted to provide and people’s positive feedback informed us this was being met. The provider had clear processes in place to ensure information between services was shared and used as opportunities to learn.

The inspection took place on 3 and 4 February 2016 and was announced. We last inspected Comfort Call Newcastle in August 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at the time.

Comfort Call Newcastle provides personal care for older people, including people with physical and mental health conditions, who are tenants in Park View Grange, an extra care housing scheme. The personal care is provided by an on-site domiciliary care team across the day and at night. The inspection also encompassed the personal care delivered to tenants at Bowmont House. This is another of the provider’s services that was in the process of being registered and was being managed from Comfort Call Newcastle. Bowmont House is also an extra care housing scheme with an on-site domiciliary care team. At the time of our inspection services were provided to 30 people living at Park View Grange and 34 people living at Bowmont House.

A manager had applied to become the registered manager for both services. 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.

We found that care was delivered safely and took account of risks associated with people’s vulnerability. Safeguarding procedures were understood and followed to protect people from harm and abuse.

Staff were suitably recruited and there were enough staff to ensure that people’s needs were safely met. There was scope within the staffing levels to keep checks on people’s welfare and, when necessary, to provide extra care and support.

People were given appropriate support in taking their medicines to maintain their health and well-being. The staff supported people in staying healthy and, where needed, in meeting their dietary needs.

Staff had undertaken relevant training that enabled them to meet people’s needs in a safe and effective way. The staff were supervised and appraised and routine checks were made of their care practice and performance.

People were involved in making choices and decisions about their care and had consented to the care they received. Care needs and risks were assessed and personalised care plans had been developed. People’s care services were kept under regular review and there was a system for updating care plans at least annually.

The service regularly consulted with people about their support, their care workers and overall satisfaction. A clear complaints system was in place and any concerns were properly investigated.

People felt they received a good service and spoke highly of their care workers. They told us the staff were kind, caring and respectful. Many people appreciated having their privacy and independence whilst being secure in the knowledge that staff were available when they needed them.

The service was well managed and co-ordinated and staff were provided with leadership. There was an inclusive atmosphere and the management were pro-active in seeking people’s views. The quality of people’s care and the service were continuously monitored to ensure the provider’s standards were maintained.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activity at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We considered our inspection findings to answer 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?

People’s care was planned according to their assessed needs and any risks to their personal safety. This ensured that care was delivered in a safe way and protected people from being harmed.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to safeguard people using the service from abuse and to respond to any allegations of abuse.

Care workers were properly checked and vetted to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. People were provided with a reliable and consistent care service and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Is the service effective?

Care plans were kept under regular review to check they remained effective in meeting people’s needs. People using the service and their relatives told us they were very happy with their care and support. Their comments included, “I like to be independent. I do get a good service from the staff here. I only need to ask and they help me”, and, “The carers are so hospitable. Nothing is a problem to them”.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Our observations confirmed that care workers were patient and sensitive. People were able to do things at their own pace and were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People described their care workers as “wonderful” and “fabulous”. One person told us, “One of the girls comes with me to help me shop. They are just like friends to us”.

Is the service responsive?

People’s care and support was tailored to their individual preferences and diverse needs. Where the need for changes to a person’s care plan was identified, these were made promptly. The staffing arrangements were flexible, allowing care workers to respond to people’s changing needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service did not currently have a registered manager. A senior manager told us a new manager was being employed and would be applying to become registered. The scheme co-ordinator was managing the service in the interim, with support from senior management, and was providing appropriate leadership.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and their roles and responsibilities. People were routinely consulted about their level of satisfaction and feedback was used to improve the quality of the service. Quality assurance processes were in place to check that standards were maintained.

We found that people's care was well planned, satisfactorily met their needs and supported them to retain their independence. We also found that people were treated with dignity and respect. People who used the service spoke highly of the care and support they received. They told us: "The staff are so good. They’re there when you need them”; “I never thought I would get the level of support I’m getting now”; “They can’t do enough for me. They give me the help I need. No one is ever unkind or unhelpful. What more could I ask for.”

The service had made arrangements to help people take their prescribed medicines safely. People who used the service told us they received the help and support they needed with their medicines.

Arrangements had been made to make sure care workers received training to provide people who used the service with safe care which met their needs.

The service had arrangements in place for monitoring the quality of care people received. These included obtaining people's views about the care they received, and checking that care workers carried out their job satisfactorily.

People who used the service said they knew how to complain and would feel comfortable raising concerns.