# New Concept Care Selby

*Operated by New Concept Care . Nursing . Training Limited.*

New Concept Care Selby is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Selby.

## CQC Ratings

| Key question | Rating |
| --- | --- |
| Overall | Good |
| Safe | Requires improvement |
| Effective | Good |
| Caring | Good |
| Responsive | Good |
| Well-led | Good |

Rating published: 29/01/2019

## Practical info

- Postcode: YO8 4AL
- Registered manager: Walsh, Susan
- Local authority: North Yorkshire
- Region: Yorkshire & Humberside
- City: Selby
- Last CQC check: 29/Jan/2019 - 00:00

## Inspection findings

### caring

- Finding
  - People were supported by staff who understood their individual needs and were encouraged to be independent.
  - Published: 2022-10-11

### effective

- Finding
  - Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal and supported nutritional and health needs.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Mental capacity legislation not always applied consistently; LPA records absent and best interest meetings not always held.
  - Published: 2022-10-11

### Other

- Finding
  - Evidence: Robust business continuity planning and timely CQC/safeguarding notifications
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Evidence: Customer guide available in accessible formats (easy read, large print, braille)
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Evidence: Open and supportive management culture with effective communication via meetings, newsletters and phone
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Evidence: Person-centred, responsive care that supported independence and community access
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Evidence: Caring, kind staff who respected privacy, dignity and confidentiality
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Evidence: Thorough induction linked to the Care Certificate with regular ongoing training, supervision, appraisal and spot checks
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff were recruited safely with DBS checks and two written references
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Evidence: People told us they felt safe in the care of the staff and were protected from abuse by trained staff
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **record_keeping** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: some records required updating to reflect people's recent change in needs
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **governance** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: We looked at a selection of policies and procedures. We found some were not up-to-date and did not reflect best practice.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **governance** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: people said they had never seen the collated results of surveys or questionnaires
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **governance** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: We found audits did not always identify issues... when issues were identified they were not always followed up.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **consent_capacity** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: best interest meetings had not always taken place when necessary... We found least restrictive options for care had not been recorded.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **consent_capacity** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: We asked the registered manager for details of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)... however there were no court records in people's files.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **consent_capacity** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: mental capacity assessments did not detail what people could and could not do, and for some people there was no clarification on whether they could consent to care
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **staffing_levels** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: we saw staff rotas were produced with no, or little, travel time between calls and we saw errors were sometimes made on the rotas requiring staff to be at two calls at the same time
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **missed_or_late_visits** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs, however sometimes staff were late to attend calls.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **care_planning** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: we found one person had no risk assessment for choking despite carers telling us they struggled to eat some foods
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- **medication_management** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: two people's creams had been applied more frequently than recommended and topical products were not always dated when opened
  - Published: 2022-10-11

### responsive

- Finding
  - Concerns and complaints were addressed appropriately.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Care records were person-centred although some required updating to reflect recent changes in needs.
  - Published: 2022-10-11

### safe

- Finding
  - Staff were recruited safely and in sufficient numbers but sometimes late to calls; rotas did not support timely visits.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Some people required further risk assessments to keep them safe.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - People received their oral medications as prescribed, although more care was needed with the application of topical creams.
  - Published: 2022-10-11

### well_led

- Finding
  - Policies and procedures were not always up-to-date and did not always reflect best practice.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - People were asked for opinions but had not seen the collated results of surveys.
  - Published: 2022-10-11
- Finding
  - Audits did not always identify issues and identified issues were not always followed up.
  - Published: 2022-10-11

## Source

Data published by the [Care Quality Commission](https://www.cqc.org.uk/) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Canonical page: https://homecarecompass.co.uk/agency/1-130466994

HomeCare Compass is an independent guide and is not affiliated with the CQC.