Archived: Priory Homecare Limited

Updated 25 October 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection visit took place on 04 October 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people who lived in the community. We needed to be sure that we could access the office premises.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection on 04 October 2016 we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people the service supported. We also checked to see if any information concerning the care and welfare of people supported had been received.

We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) we received prior to our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This provided us with information and numerical data about the operation of the service. We used this information as part of the evidence for the inspection. This guided us to what areas we would focus on as part of our inspection.

During our inspection visit we spoke with ten people supported by the service. We also went to the Priory Homecare Limited office and spoke with a range of people about the service. They included the manager, senior care manager/assessor, care coordinator, the services administrator and three staff members providing care in the community.

We looked at the care records of four people, recruitment records of two new staff, training records of four staff members and records relating to the management of the service. We also spoke with the commissioning department at the local authority. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced when accessing the service.

Updated 25 October 2016

This inspection visit took place on 04 October 2016 and was announced.

At the last inspection on 05 July 2013 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

Priory Homecare Limited is a large Lancashire based domiciliary care service. The service provides support to people in their own homes across Garstang, Kirkham and over Wyre. The service is overseen by care managers each responsible for one of the districts the service is provided. The service operates from offices based on Garstang Road in St Michaels-on-Wyre. At the time of our inspection visit Priory Homecare Limited provided services to 125 people.

The service did not have 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.

Prior to this inspection the manager had submitted an application to be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This was being dealt with by CQC’s registration team when the inspection visit took place.

People supported by the service told us staff who visited them were polite, reliable and professional in their approach to their work. Comments received included, “Social services recommended Priory to me and I have never regretted using them. The staff are always on time and have never let me down.” And, “The girls who visit us are clean, tidy and cheerful and make us laugh. [Relative] loves them all.” And, “The staff visiting me are of the highest quality. Genuine caring people who will do anything for you.”

People we spoke with told us they felt safe. They told us they received patient and safe care and they liked the staff who supported them. They said staff were respectful, friendly and conscientious. The relative of one person said, “I have no fears leaving them to care for [relative]. I am not stressed as I know [relative] is safe and well cared for.”

Staff knew the people they supported and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished their care to be delivered. People told us they had been involved in making decisions about their care.

We found recruitment procedures were safe. Appropriate checks undertaken before new staff members commenced their employment. Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed a structured induction training and development programme was in place.

Newly appointed staff received induction training completed at the services training office base. This was followed by shadowing experienced colleagues until they felt safe to support people unsupervised. One recently appointed staff member told us they had been happy with their induction training.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

We looked at how the service was staffed. The three staff members spoken with said they were happy with how their visits were managed. They told us they were allocated sufficient time to be able to provide support people required. Ten people supported by the service told us staff were reliable and very rarely late. One person said, “Never had a missed visit.”

On the day of our inspection visit three staff attended Priory Homecare Limited office to receive formal supervision from a member of the management team. We spoke with them prior to receiving their supervision. They told us they felt well supported and enjoyed working for the service.

The service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided. Ten people supported by the service all said they had confidence in the staff who supported them and felt safe when they received their care.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Records had been completed when support had been provided. People told us they received their medicines at the times they needed them.

Staff supported people to have a nutritious dietary and fluid intake. Assistance was provided in preparation of food and drinks if needed.

People who used the service knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns. Where people had expressed concerns appropriate action had been quickly taken.

The manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot checks and care reviews. We looked at a sample of surveys and found people were satisfied with the service they received.

The manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care.