Premier Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service was a small family run organisation. Leaders were very involved in care delivery and worked alongside staff to model good standards of care. Leaders said they wanted to provide the best care possible for people and make sure they were safe. The service had received many compliments about the care they provided. One member of staff said, “You can build up a good relationship with management. It is family run and it feels family run.”

Staff said they really enjoyed their work, felt valued and wanted to make a difference to people. Comments from staff included, “I love it, it is so nice to think you are doing something for someone. Everyone has a story; they [people] are all so interesting” and “I feel valued, I really do like it here.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

There was an experienced registered manager in post who was supported by other management staff. Feedback about management from people, relatives and staff was very positive. One member of staff said, “The registered manager is very, very good. I phone them, they always answer, make me feel comfortable. Will always sort things out.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had whistleblowing policies and made sure staff were aware of action to take if they had any concerns. Staff had access to all of the provider policies and could ask questions if they did not understand any procedure.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had policies on equality, diversity and inclusion and provided staff with information if needed on any topic. Leaders told us if staff needed support or adjustments due to cultural practices this was considered. Staff had training on equality, diversity and inclusion and told us they had not seen any discriminatory practice. Staff and leaders had been provided with training on LGBT inclusive practices. The provider told us this training had developed staff knowledge and understanding and had been well received.

The service had care packages within a small geographical area. This meant they could employ staff who could not drive as traveling between visits was within walking distance. The registered manager told us this had helped with recruitment of staff.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems were established to support the service to monitor quality and safety. Leaders were completing spot checks on staff in people’s homes. Monitoring visits were taking place where leaders checked with people what their views and feedback was. Any areas for improvement were recorded on action plans. People and relatives said they were asked if they were happy with the service. One relative said, “They do ask on an annual basis. They have a survey.”

Audits were completed for areas such as medicines and daily notes. Some of these checks were completed daily which meant shortfalls were identified in a timely way so immediate action could be taken.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Leaders worked with healthcare professionals to help make sure people’s needs were met. There were good links with GP surgeries, community nurses and social workers. Feedback from professionals was positive about working with the service. One professional told us, “Communication from the service is timely, clear and sufficiently detailed, particularly in relation to changes in people’s needs, risks or wellbeing. Premier Care Services have consistently communicated proactively about changes in people’s needs via email and telephone.”

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider was open to learning and developing the service. They wanted to make sure they were providing the best care for people as possible. Staff were encouraged to do work-based qualifications and develop their skills and understanding.

The provider was reviewing their electronic systems and making plans to improve care planning, staff rotas and medicines systems. They recognised they needed a more responsive system that reduced the time spent on transferring information.