Privilege Care Limited

Updated 24 May 2022

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and one Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience (EXE) is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. They made telephone calls to discuss people’s experiences of the care and support received.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service is required to have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of our inspection the service did not have a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection site visit activity started on 13 April 2022 and ended on 14 April 2019. We visited the office location on both days to see the nominated individual and office staff, review care records and policies and procedures. The EXE made telephone calls to people on 13 April 2022.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection-

Throughout the inspection we gave the provider opportunities to tell us what improvements they had made since our last visit.

We spoke with one person who used the service, three relatives, three care staff and the nominated individual. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We viewed four care plans, three staff files in relation to recruitment, induction and supervision, training data, policies and procedures and a variety of records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 24 May 2022

About the service:

Privilege Care Limited has one registered location providing care and support to people in their own home. The office is situated within walking distance of Slough’s High Street, railway station and transport links. At the time of our inspection, five people were supported with personal care.

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:

During this inspection, we checked to see if the provider had addressed the concerns found at our previous visits on 10 to 13 September 2019.

People and relatives spoke about the caring nature of staff. Comments included, “I am very happy with my male carer who is fantastic, part of the family and furniture!” and “The carers are very kind and compassionate.”

People received person-centre support from staff whose care practices were not discriminatory. Staff records showed they had undertaken equality and diversity training and were aware of people’s diverse needs. People and relatives were involved in making decisions about their care. Peoples’ dignity and privacy was maintained, and their independence promoted.

People and relatives said they were kept safe from abuse. Comments included, “Mum has absolutely no concerns about her carers, she feels very safe and secure” and “He (family member) feels very safe in their care.”

People were protected from harm. Staff had demonstrated a good understanding of how to keep people safe and the nominated individual had attended role-specific training relating to safeguarding adults and children at risk. People were protected from avoidable harm. Risks to peoples' health and welfare were identified, and staff were provided with enough information to know how to manage and mitigate those risks. Safe recruitment practices and medicines management were in place and people were protected from the risk of infection. Robust measures were in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

People and relatives felt staff were trained to carry out their job roles. A relative commented, “The carers are well trained, and the regular carers make sure any new carers are well informed and trained to meet (family member’s) care needs.”

Staff were appropriately inducted, trained and supported. The provider ensured accurate information was in place to enable staff to provide effective care. Assessments relating to peoples’ care and support needs were regularly reviewed and included information relating to all protected characteristics, as identified in the Equality Act 2010. The provider worked with health and social care professionals to ensure peoples’ care and support needs could be met.

People can only be deprived of their liberty so that they can receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Applications to deprive a person who is supported in their own home need to be made to the Court of Protection (COP). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

We found people’s rights were protected because the nominated individual ensured they and staff worked in accordance with the MCA and its Codes of Practice.

People and relatives felt the service was responsive to their care and support needs. Comments included, “I find the company very responsive to the needs of their service users which is reflected in the high standard of my care.”

Staff had enough information to enable them to provide care in the way people said they wanted it. The provider worked in accordance with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) to make sure people were given information in a way they could understand. The provider had appropriate systems in place for identifying, receiving, handling and responding to complaints. We have made a recommendation regarding their complaints policy.

People were overwhelmingly positive about how the service was managed. Comments included, “I feel 100% looked after. I do feel that the company does value the carers who work for them. I would recommend this company.” and “I can’t speak highly enough of them (care staff) and I couldn’t manage without them! I would definitely recommend them (the service), 100%.”

Since our last inspection the provider had made significant improvements and had established effective systems and processes to ensure good governance. However, they were not meeting all the conditions of their registration. The provider had taken the learning from their last inspection to improve peoples’ safety and the quality of the service provided.

Rating at last inspection and update: The last rating for this service was inadequate (published 9 December 2019). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.

This service has been in Special Measures since 9 December 2019. During this inspection the provider demonstrated that improvements have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.