We carried out a review of the data available to us about Apex Prime Care - Southampton 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 Apex Prime Care - Southampton, you can give feedback on this service.
Apex Prime Care - Southampton is a home care service providing personal care to people in their own home. The service provides support to older adults who may be living with dementia, a physical disability, sensory impairment or mental health diagnosis. At the time of our inspection there were 319 people using the service.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their relatives were happy with the quality of care provided and felt safe receiving care from staff. They told us they received a consistent service from competent staff who were knowledgeable about their needs. The provider had systems in place to mitigate risks related to the delivery of care and contingencies in place to help ensure the service ran safely in the event of an emergency. The provider had effective procedures to identify, report and analyse incidents to reduce the risk of reoccurrence, promoting people’s safety and wellbeing.
People told us that the service was well-led and that management staff were professional and approachable. There were clear governance structures in place which helped ensure senior staff understood their role and were given support to work effectively. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the care provided, which included gaining people’s feedback. The provider was focussed on making continuous improvements through investing in new systems and developing existing processes. They worked in partnership with external stakeholders to promote people’s safety and independence.
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 the service was good. (published 7 July 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults.
At the time of inspection, there were 84 people receiving personal care services from the provider. Not everyone who used Apex Prime Shirley received support in the form of a regulated activity CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
The service was rated Requires Improvement at its last inspection in April 2017 and had breached one registration regulation regarding submitting notifications of serious incidents that occurred. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do to meet the breach and improve the key questions of Well-Led to at least Good. At this inspection, we found that the provider had made improvements needed to meet the requirements of this regulation. The registered manager had a sound knowledge of their responsibilities of notifying CQC about significant incidents and had made these notifications in good time.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 that the registered manager had made improvements to the service since starting their role. These included improving consistency of staffing, improvement reliability of service in providing care calls and also improving communication between the provider and people.
The registered manager had made improvements to the system of auditing people’s care documentation. They had implemented training and a new system which was more robust in picking up errors or omissions.. The registered manager held regular staff meetings where feedback from people, complaints or issues about the quality of care were discussed and reviewed.
The registered manager had reduced instances where there were missed calls. All instances of missed calls were investigated to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence. The provider had recently implemented an electronic call monitoring system which would alert the provider if staff did not arrive at their care calls at the agreed time.
Some people told us they did not receive a rota detailing the time of their care calls. The provider told us this facility was available to people upon request and the registered manager would ensure this service was offered to people and regularly reviewed. However, people told us they had consistent care teams who arrived at consistent times and therefore the impact of not receiving a schedule of visits was minimal.
During the inspection, the provider made the arrangements to ensure that the service’s previous inspection rating was clearly displayed on their website. This meant that by the end of the first day of inspection the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulation to display their rating in the office and on their website.
The registered manager had plans in place to ensure that people’s care needs were met in the event of an emergency. They had put plans and risk assessments in place to help ensure that the most vulnerable people had their care prioritised in the event of extreme circumstances.
Other risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and monitored. This included the risks associated with staff not being able to enter people’s property at agreed times. The provider had a service which people and staff could contact outside office hours, which meant that senior management were available to offer support and guidance if required.
The level of support people required around their medicines or eating and drinking was clearly defined in their care plans. Care plans were concisely written to simply reflect people’s preferences around their personal care routines. When people’s needs changed, the provider was proactive in making appropriate referrals to healthcare services, acting on changes and recommendations as required.
Risks associated with the spread of infection were assessed and monitored. Staff had received training in infection control and understood the steps needed to minimise the risk of infections spreading.
The registered manager listened to people’s feedback, complaints and concerns in order to make improvements. The registered manager was focussed on making improvements to the service’s quality and safety. They used incidents and mistakes as learning tools to promote staff’s understanding of good quality care.
There were enough staff in place to meet people’s needs. The registered manager carefully considered staffing capacity when assessing whether the service could take on additional care packages.
The provider made appropriate checks to staff candidates’ background and work history during the recruitment process. Staff received training in line with nationally recognised standards and were given ongoing support by the registered manager in their role.
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.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 164 older people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age.
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.
The provider had not submitted notifications when required. Improvements were needed to ensure that all of the required checks were made before new staff started working at the service.
People and their families expressed mixed views about whether the service always provided their care at a time of their choosing. People did not have confidence in the out of hour’s service provided.
People and their families told us they felt safe and secure when receiving care and that staff were caring and responsive to their needs.
People received their medicines safely and staff contacted healthcare professionals when required. Staff received training in safeguarding adults. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role.
New staff completed an induction designed to ensure staff understood their new role before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and support to discuss areas of development. There were sufficient numbers of staff to maintain the schedule of care visits to meet people’s needs.
People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy was respected. Staff had an understanding of legislation designed to protect people’s rights and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices.
Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.
Staff were responsive to people’s needs which were detailed in people’s care plans. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure people received personalised care. A complaints procedure was in place.
Staff felt supported by the manager and could visit the office to discuss any concerns. Procedures were in place to investigate complaints and learn from any accidents or incidents.
We identified one breach of regulations. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.