Preferred Care

Updated 6 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit to ensure we had access to the office base and because we needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Preferred Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. The agency is a small service offering personal care and support to people living in North Lancashire.

The inspection site visit was on 15 May. We also visited the home of one person who received a service.

We contacted the commissioning departments at Lancashire County Council. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced accessing the service

Prior to this inspection, as part of our planning, we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including data about safeguarding and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are required to be submitted by the provider to the Care Quality Commission to advise of important events.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection, we spoke with two people who received a service and a relative. We also spoke with the registered manager who was also the owner, a senior carer and one staff member. We looked at care records of two people who received a service.

In addition we looked at records relating to the management of the service. We did this to ensure the provider/registered manager had oversight of the service and they could respond to any concerns highlighted or lead the agency in ongoing improvements. We also looked at staffing levels focusing on how staff provided care within people’s homes.

Updated 6 June 2018

This inspection visit took place on 15 May 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the service delivered domiciliary care to people who lived in their own homes. We needed to be sure the provider was in the office and people the service supported would be available to speak to us. This service is a small domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses in the community. At the time of our inspection there were two people receiving a service from the agency.

At the last inspection in March 2016 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service had not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in place who was also the owner. 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 owner/ registered manager was hands on and provided care for people with two staff members. During this inspection, people told us they felt safe using Preferred Care. When we discussed safeguarding people from abuse or poor practice with staff, we found they had a good knowledge about related procedures.

They had a system to monitor care packages to ensure people received support on time and as agreed. This enabled the registered manager/owner to monitor staffing levels against care delivery requirements.

Preferred Care had stocks of personal protective equipment such as gels and hygienic wipes. Staff said they could obtain the equipment whenever they needed it to maintain infection control when they supported people in their own homes.

Staff had received training to administer medicines for people. However at the time of the inspection people who received a service were responsible for their own medication requirements.

Staff had individual training programmes and they were updated to ensure they continued to develop their skills and knowledge.

The registered manager and staff if required made sure people's dietary and fluid intake was recorded and sufficient for good nutrition and encouraged them to eat when they visited.

People's healthcare needs continued to be carefully monitored and discussed with the person as part of the care planning process.

People were 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 service had information with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by people they supported.

Care plans were organised and had identified care and support people required. We found they were personalised and informative about care people received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary. They reflected any risks and people’s changing needs.

We found by talking with people who used the agency saw there was an emphasis on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people. They told us they were treated as individuals and received person centred care. Comments from people who used the agency included, “They are kind sensitive and always respectful.” Another said, “All three of them are so lovely and caring, I am lucky to have them.”

People knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint if they were unhappy with something.There was a transparent and open culture that encouraged people to express any ideas or concerns. A relative said, “I know the system to complain but never ever had to, it is a great service.”

The registered manager /owner sought people's views informally and formally and dealt with any issues of quality quickly and appropriately.