Archived: Premier Care Limited - Rochdale Branch

This was an announced inspection on the 9 and 10 March 2016. We gave the agency 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that the manager would be in. We also contacted people who used the service and their relatives on the 15 March 2015, to seek their views about the service received.

We last inspected Premier Care Rochdale in September 2014 at which time it was compliant with all the regulations we assessed.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection, there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 three breaches in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found potential risks to people had not been adequately assessed and planned for so that people were protected from potential harm or injury.

On review of people’s records we found that information gathered in the summary plan did not reflect people’s needs and wishes and were not always completed in full and some records were not signed or dated.

All the people we spoke with said they would speak with office staff if they had any complaints or concerns. However, effective systems of recording people’s complaints and concerns were not in place to show that people were listened to and where necessary action had been taken.

People told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff had completed training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew the action they should take if they had any concerns. Suitable arrangements were in place where the agency had access to people’s house keys and finances. These systems helped protect people who used the service.

Systems were in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines. The agency was to introduce a better way of monitoring medication administration so that any shortfalls identified could be quickly acted upon.

Sufficient numbers of staff were available to provide flexibility of support. People spoke positively about the staff and said they were generally on time, although recognised there were occasions when staff may run late.

Recruitment checks were completed before staff commenced work. However, records did not address all areas of the agency’s policies and procedure to ensure all detailed information about the suitability of candidates was gathered.

People were involved in discussions regarding their support and signed their agreement on their care records. Staff received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were aware of the importance of seeking people’s permission before carrying out tasks.

Staff received induction, supervision and a programme of training to help ensure they were able to deliver effective care. Staff spoken with confirmed they received regularly training and were equipped to support the needs of people they visited.

Suitable arrangements were in place to help ensure people’s health and nutritional needs were met.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care received and that staff supported them in a dignified and respectful manner. Staff spoken with demonstrated a clear understanding and gave examples of how people’s privacy and dignity was promoted and maintained. Consideration was also given to people cultural and religious needs.

A number of quality assurance systems were in place. Both staff and people who used the service were encouraged to comment on the service provided and to identify where any improvements could be made.

Suitable policies and procedures were in place relating to the safeguarding of people using the service.

All staff had received safeguarding training.

Risk assessments were in place for people and these were regularly reviewed and updated.

Support staff employed at the agency had the skills and experience needed to safely support the people they cared for and supported.

Is the service effective?

A full assessment of people's needs was carried out prior to people starting to use the service. Where possible people were fully involved in this assessment.

Each person had a homecare support plan which provided good detail on what care they received, how often and how staff met peoples care needs.

Is the service caring?

People and or their relatives were involved in developing their care plan.

The service was person centred in its approach and did this by taking into account the diverse range of people it supported.

Relatives of people who used the service told us they were very happy with the care and support they received from Premier Care Limited.

Is the service responsive?

The service employed enough staff to be able to meet the needs of people they supported and to provide cover for staff absences.

Staff received training to ensure they were competent in all aspects of people's care and support.

People's care and support plans were updated in response to changes in their care needs.

Incidents were recorded and analysed to ensure any improvements necessary were made.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received the care they needed.

Is the service well-led?

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They met regularly with the manager.

There was an effective quality assurance system in place and any issues were addressed promptly.

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the agency and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

The manager had sent us an action plan prior to our visit informing us of the action taken to make the necessary improvements needed.

We found that records had been developed to show that people had been involved in reviewing their care and support plans as well as agreeing to specific areas of support. Some support plans however could be expanded upon further so that sufficient information was provided to guide staff in the delivery of people's care and support.

We asked people to tell us about their experiences. People commented, 'I'm quite happy', 'We've no concerns about the service', 'We'd like more visits for our relative' and 'I have good carers'. Each of the people we spoke with knew who to contact if they needed to discuss their care and support.

We also looked at the individual care records for people. Some of the records did not clearly direct staff in the safe delivery of care.

People had been involved in developing their support plans and where able, had given their consent and signed their agreement.

Systems were in place to ensure the safety and protection of people using the service. The manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities and knew what action to take should an allegation of abuse be made.

Suitable staffing arrangements were in place to meet the individual needs of people who use the agency. Staff spoken with confirmed they received regular training and support.

Systems to monitor and review the quality of service provided had been developed. Where improvements had been identified, action was planned for.

Records were maintained with regards to any complaints or concerns made to the agency. Information showed that any matters brought to their attention were responded to in line with organisational procedures.