Archived: Supreme Healthcare Services

We therefore looked at the outcomes for care and welfare and for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision to answer the questions: is the service safe and is the service responsive?

The current registered manager was not present at the time of this inspection. We spoke with another manager who had recently taken up post in the Winchester office and was in the process of applying for registration.

At the time of this inspection the manager told us there were 60 people receiving personal care.

We spoke with six people who use the service and the relatives of two other people who receive a service. We also spoke with four care workers, the manager, assistant manager, co-ordinator, and the Head of Operations. We looked at care and support records for six people who use the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because people's needs had been assessed prior to the commencement of a service, to help ensure that the service could meet those needs. The assessments included risks associated with the provision of personal care in people's own homes. For example, risks related to the home environment and people being assisted by care workers to mobilise or re-position.

We saw that audits of the quality and safety of the service took place. For example, the manager had a system for auditing care plans and this was in progress at the time of the inspection. Arrangements were in place for staff supervision. This included 'spot checks', when a senior member of staff would observe whether care workers arrived on time for visits, were dressed appropriately and delivered care to the appropriate standard.

An emergency on-call system was in operation throughout the week outside of office hours. This was available to staff and people using the service. Care workers said a senior member of staff was always on hand if they needed them.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service was responsive. People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and support and they were acted on. An action plan was developed to address any areas where improvement was needed. A system was in place to monitor and respond to any concerns or complaints about the service. People we spoke with told us they knew how to make a complaint and would feel comfortable about raising any issues with the agency. One person said they were 'Very pleased with the service' and the response from office staff 'Is very good'.

Reviews were carried out to check if the level of service provided still met people's current needs. A person using the service told us they liked to be independent and that senior staff had reviewed their care with them and made changes when they felt able to do more things independently.

Care workers told us the communication between the office and care staff was good. For example, when responding to any changes and covering shifts. Staff meetings were held once a month and staff could raise any concerns or issues. They told us the managers dealt with matters appropriately and they felt well supported.

There was evidence that learning from incidents or investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. Action had been taken following an incident when a care visit was missed due to a miscommunication between staff.

There had been some concerns raised over the understanding of English of some staff. Whilst staff varied in their competencies in this area, we did not find any evidence that people currently using the service had been adversely affected by this. The agency was taking steps to ensure that where necessary staff were provided with additional lessons in English and they were closely monitoring to ensure that staff understanding and communication of English was of an acceptable level.

We found that people's care needs were thoroughly assessed and plans of care to provide support were clear and up to date. This helped staff to consistently provide the support needed. Staff were provided with information and training to help them to safeguard people from abuse. Staff recruitment procedures were thorough and this helped to ensure that staff were fit and appropriately qualified to do their job. Comments and complaints were listened to and acted upon.