Premier Care Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs assessments did not always contain sufficient information about all their health conditions and support needs and were mainly task orientated. They did not include sufficient personalised details about their individual histories, their social and leisure interests, their likes and dislikes and their preferences.

However, people and their relatives were involved in assessments and reviews and felt staff understood their needs and preferences. The registered manager said, “We meet with clients and their families to do their needs assessments and care plans, and we ask them if they are happy with them or if there is anything we need to adjust. I visit clients often and update plans if anything has changed, but otherwise I do reviews at least every six months. When I do the review, I do it with the client and their family, and they sign it. When things have changed, I update the carers about it, and I update the client’s care notes. We see whether things are working and if staff think something needs to change, they discuss it with the person and their family and me, and we can change it if necessary”. 

One person’s relative said, “We have regular 6-month reviews of [his/her] care”. Another person’s relative told us, “They review [his/her] care regularly with me to make sure it’s right”. One other person’s relative said, “We have reviews of [mum’s/dad’s] care”.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and support with them and their relatives, including what was important and mattered to them. However, the provider did not always adhere to guidance and current good practice and standards when delivering people’s care and support.

The provider had not always followed NICE guidelines for ‘Managing medicines for adults receiving social care in the community’ or the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), for example. We have addressed these concerns in detail in the medicines optimisation section of the key question Safe and the providing information section of the key question Responsive.

Staff worked well together. There was a supportive culture and good communication between staff, including an appropriate hand over of information about people when shifts changed. The service worked well with other services and professionals and shared and followed-up information with them.

One person’s relative said, “They [staff] work really well with the district nurse with regards to [his/her] health needs. [He/she] is much safer now than before they [Premier Care Services Limited] were involved”. Another person’s relative told us, “[He/she] has them [Premier Care Services Limited] twice a day as well as the district nurse, as [he/she] has pressure sores. They both record things in a book, so they communicate very well. In fact, it’s excellent how they work and communicate together. I read both of their notes, so I can see how good it is”. One other person’s relative said, “They called an ambulance for [him/her] when [he/she] fell out of bed to check him over and stayed with [him/her] and me until the ambulance arrived”.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing and to maximise their independence, choice and control. The provider had processes in place for staff to record people’s food and fluid intake and staff supported people to live healthier lives, and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

One person told us, “They take me out to social events in the evening”. A person’s relative said, “They engage with [his/her] physiotherapist really well. It all works well. They let me know if there are any problems”.

Another person’s relative told us, “They check [his/her] skin to make sure it’s intact”. One other person’s relative said, “They do [mum’s/dad’s] food for [him/her]. I know what [he/she] has eaten and what [he/she] hasn’t. [Mum/dad] has put on weight, and [he/she] needed to”.

The provider had processes for staff to report accidents and incidents and they were recorded. However, the learning from accidents and incidents was not always recorded. This meant it was not clear lessons had always been learned and action was taken to improve the service and mitigate the risk of similar incidents.

However, people, their relatives and staff felt comfortable to raise concerns and felt the provider would listen to them and act.

A person’s relative said, “I have a good relationship with the manager, and she calls me if there are any issues. I trust her”. Another person’s relative told us, “I can call the office whenever I need them. They are always there to help”.

The provider understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Managers obtained people’s and relatives’ consent, and staff respected people’s rights when delivering person-centred care and support.

One person’s relative said, “They [staff] explain everything they are doing, and [he/she] lets them continue with [his/her] care. Another person’s relative told us, “[Member of staff] is always very respectful of my [husband’s/wife’s] needs”. One other person’s relative said, “They [staff] always ask [his/her] permission before turning [him/her] and [he/she] nods at them”.