You are here

Platinum Homecare (South Coast) Limited Good


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Platinum Homecare (South Coast) Limited on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Platinum Homecare (South Coast) Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 10 January 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Platinum Homecare [South Coast] Limited, is a family run care at home, domiciliary care provider in the West Sussex town of Selsey, which is situated close to the coast. At the time of this inspection 52 people received personal care support from the service. The service supported older people, some of who were living with dementia and people with physical disabilities, within their own homes.

Not everyone using Platinum Homecare [South Coast] Limited receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received a consistently good service and felt safe with the support they received from the staff. One person told us, “It's certainly safe. I've never had any worries at all, and I trust the staff completely.”

Staff understood how to raise concerns both within and outside of the service should they need to. People and staff felt they were listened to and that their ideas and any concerns they may have were addressed.

People received their medicines safely and medicines that were prescribed on an ‘as required’ basis were given safely.

Staff knew people well and provided support in the way people wanted. People’s individual needs and preferences were known and understood by staff which meant that they received a person-centred service. Support was provided which ensured people received food and drink when they needed this.

Training and observations of staff practice, as well as supervision with the management team ensured that staff were competent in their roles.

People were involved in decisions about their care and staff sought appropriate consent and asked people what help they needed. People received care that respected their privacy and dignity as well as promoting their independence wherever possible.

Staff supported people with timely access to external healthcare when people were unwell and supported with access to medical appointments as needed.

The service was well-led by a dedicated management team who demonstrated compassion and commitment to the needs of the people who used the service as well as the staff who worked for them.

The registered and deputy managers worked professionally with agencies outside of the service and ensured a transparent, honest and open approach to their work which as valued by others.

Rating at last inspection: Good (23 June 2016).

Why we inspected: We inspected the service as part of our inspection schedule methodology for ‘Good’ rated services.

Inspection carried out on 5 May 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 5 and 9 May 2016 and was announced.

Platinum Homecare (South Coast) Limited is a family-run domiciliary care service that provides support to people in West Sussex, including in Chichester and Southbourne, The Witterings and Selsey. At the time of our visit the service was supporting 70 people with personal care.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People did not always receive safe support with their medicines. Records of administration for some people were unclear and that guidance on ‘as needed’ (PRN) medicines and topical creams was insufficient. Other aspects of medicines were managed safely. Prior to our inspection the registered manager had nominated a staff member to monitor how people were supported with their medicines and to ensure that assessments were up to date. By the second day of our visit, staff had started to complete written guidance to staff on PRN medicines.

The service was able to respond quickly to provide additional care and to meet people’s needs. People and relatives spoke highly of the service and valued the flexibility they were able to offer in scheduling additional support at short notice. People were involved in planning their care and determining how they wished to receive care and support. People’s care was reviewed and any changes communicated quickly and effectively to staff.

People were asked for their views on how the service was run and felt able to approach staff and management with any concerns or ideas. The registered manager responded proactively to make improvements and adapt care to meet people’s needs. People knew how to make a complaint and were assured of a full and prompt response.

People spoke highly of the staff who supported them and valued the continuity of care that they received. Staff supported people to be as independent as they were able and were mindful of their privacy. People told us that staff respected them.

There were enough staff employed and the rotas were managed effectively. Staff understood local safeguarding procedures. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and reviewed.

People had confidence in the staff who supported them. Staff received training to enable them to deliver effective care. They were supported in their roles and professional development by a system of supervision. Staff understood how consent should be considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff supported people to prepare meals and to eat and drink if required. Where people could benefit from additional support, referrals were made to other healthcare professionals such as the GP, district nurses or occupational therapist.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and used feedback from people and staff to identify improvements and act on them. Senior care workers carried out spot checks on staff and reviews with people in the community. The registered manager acted openly and transparently and responded quickly to any areas of concern. This helped to ensure that the service made continuous improvements and delivered care that was of a consistently good standard.

Inspection carried out on 2 September 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of this inspection we were informed that the agency was providing personal care to 57 people. We spoke to eight of these people, or their relatives, and five care workers. We also spoke with the manager.

Every one of the people spoken with told us that their care was personalised to their needs and that they were happy with the service they received from the agency. For example, one person said, "I have diabetes and also use a breathing machine. They know what to do in these areas. They keep my file up to date and always involve me when reviewing my care plan. They are really accommodating". A relative told us, "They are very, very helpful. They follow the instructions in the care plan right down to the last letter. They email me the rota which I find helpful. I ring if the times planned for the visits are not convenient and they try and move if they are able".

People told us that care workers respected their wishes with regard to the care they wanted. They also told us they had no concerns about the infection control practices undertaken by care workers. Care workers that we spoke with demonstrated understanding in both these areas.

Everyone that we spoke with said that they felt confident that issues would be resolved if raised with the management of the agency. For example, one person told us, "If you have any issues you can call the office, they are all helpful and try their best to sort things".

The evidence we gained during this inspection supported the comments made by people and their relatives.

Inspection carried out on 18 March 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by reviewing the complaints log and survey responses. We found that the majority of people were satisfied with the service they received. Of the 12 survey forms completed in August 2012 eight rated the care workers who visited them as 'excellent' and four as 'very good'. With regard to the management team five people rated them as 'excellent', six as 'very good' and one as 'good'. When asked the question 'overall how would you rate the service you receive from Platinum' eight people said this was 'excellent' and four said this was 'very good'. Evidence gained during our inspection supports the views expressed by people who completed a survey.

Inspection carried out on 13 August 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency as part of a targeted inspection programme of domiciliary care agencies with particular regard to how people's dignity was upheld and how they can make choices about their care. The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

We used postal surveys, telephone interviews and home visits to speak to 16 people who use the service and to their main carers (a relative or friend) to gain views about the service. We also spoke to four care workers, the manager and members of the agency�s office staff.

All the people spoken with told us that their care was personalised to their needs and that their privacy, dignity and independence was respected. For example, one person said, �When I needed to find an agency social services gave me the names of about four. I liked this one the best because the manager came out and did a lot of talking about what I wanted, what they could provide. She went into everything. Then they worked out a routine that fitted in with me and made me feel comfortable�.

Everyone that we spoke with felt that staff were well trained and understood their needs.

People told us that they felt safe and if they had concerns they would speak with the manager or somebody from the office.

Everyone we spoke with told us that they were happy with the service they received and that care workers were reliable and friendly.

People told us that the agency was good at listening to their views and keeping them informed. For example, one person said, �I did ask for regular care workers then changed my mind as I enjoy variety. They have matched me with staff very well. If the care workers are running late I get a call from the office. They have never let me down�.

People told us that the agency asked for their views in the form of questionnaires. No one that we spoke with could recall if they had received any feedback from these.