You are here

Primary Homecare Limited Outstanding


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 Primary Homecare 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 Primary Homecare Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 17 September 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Primary Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care service, providing personal care to people living in their own homes. 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. At the time of our inspection, there were 161 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received an extremely responsive service which was tailor made to meet their needs and aspirations. There were systems to provide people with end of life care which met their needs and wishes. There was a complaints procedure in place and people’s concerns were promptly addressed.

The service was extremely well-led. Robust systems to monitor and assess the service provided helped the registered manager to identify where improvements were needed, and these were addressed quickly. People were asked for their views about the service and these consistently demonstrated a high level of satisfaction relating to the service they received. All staff spoken with were extremely passionate about providing high quality care to people.

People and relatives told us about how the care workers and other staff working in the service were caring and respectful. People were provided with a caring and compassionate service. People’s rights to independence, privacy and dignity were promoted and respected. People’s choices about the service were valued and used to plan their care.

Risks to people were assessed and mitigated, this included the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Where people required assistance with their medicines, there were systems to provide this service safely. People’s care visits were completed as planned. Recruitment of care workers was done safely. Care workers were trained in infection control and the appropriate equipment was provided to reduce risks of cross infection. There were systems to learn from incidents and use the learning to drive improvement.

People were supported by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where people required support with their dietary needs, this was provided. Where required, people were supported to maintain good health. The service worked well with other professionals involved in people’s care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 13 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Primary Homecare Limited on our website at

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 25 October 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 25 and 27 October 2016 and was announced. This was an announced inspection so that the service had time to arrange for us to visit and talk with people using the service in their own homes. We also inspected office based records and spoke with staff during this time. From November 9 to 24 we contacted other people using the service by telephone to understand their views of the service. At our last inspection of February 2014, using our methodology at that time the service was viewed as compliant.

The service is registered to provide personal care and is a domiciliary service. There were one hundred and fifty-seven people receiving support at the time of the inspection.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The service was outstandingly well-led which was demonstrated by how the staff were supported and how well the service was organised to ensure people received high standards of care according to their assessed needs.

The care plans were person-centred written to clearly identify the support required alongside what the person could do for themselves.

All staff had attended training as part of their induction to the service designed to help them recognise abuse and know what actions to take to protect people as far as reasonably possible from actual or potential harm. Staff had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities, whether this was staff involved with providing direct support or those working to organise and support. People using the service were supported by a sufficient number of suitably experienced and knowledgeable staff to meet their needs. The manager carried out appropriate recruitment checks before staff began work with the service. Staff had been recruited safely and had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support in ways that people preferred. As part of the assessment process to determine if the service could meet the individual’s needs, people were asked about their preferences and choices and the support plans were written in a person-centred style.

The service had a medicines policy, staff had received training and systems were in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely. The service carried out an audit to determine that medicines were being managed safely.

People using the service experienced a service based upon their assessed support needs which was person-centred. The staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported. Individual goals were identified as the service employed occupational therapist alongside experienced care staff and sought the advice of other professionals to organise and deliver the care support.

Staff had been trained and had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 including best interest meetings. A best interests meeting may be needed where an adult (16+) lacks mental capacity to make significant decisions for themselves and needs others to make those decisions on their behalf.

Positive and caring relationships had been developed between the people using the service and staff supporting them. Staff responded to people’s needs in an empathic manner. People’s choices were respected as was their privacy and dignity. The care plans were written to take account of people’s needs and to promote and maintain independence. People were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support, as were family members with their permission. The service was focused upon a solution based approach and to achieve this aim.

The service had a clear set of values, positive culture and ethos which

Inspection carried out on 24 January and 3 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 26 people, of which five were family carers over the telephone and visited five people in their own homes. We asked people for their feedback about the staff provided by the service. Comments included, �The carers are first class, they are really nice people and very helpful�. �I love them all to bits, they're lovely people�. "They ask me what I want them to do, and what I would like to eat, they definitely respect me and don't rush me". �They respect me and my house, I feel completely safe�. �I wouldn't change them for the world, they're very good�. �I have one person and they are wonderful, courteous and nothing is too much trouble�. �The agency have a lovely team looking after my relative, they are caring and compassionate�.

Overall people spoken with gave positive feedback about the service they received. However we received mixed feedback about the timing of visits and the consistency of staff. The majority of people told us that their visits were fairly prompt, however one person commented, �The timing we requested can be out by an hour�. Another person stated that, �We have to wait up to an hour with some care workers, but not others�. Other comments included, �They can come about ten to fifteen minutes late, but that's not a problem�. �I have carers four times a day, on time, and it's very rare they're late�. �If the rotas change, it can shift things a little but they do try and keep to times�.

People told us that most of the time the same staff visited. However one person commented, �We don't get the same carers every day, and occasionally get new ones�. One person told us that they were, �Not quite sure who's coming�. One person said, �I've got to know the regular person who I have most of the time, however somebody else comes on a Monday, and there's no real telling who I have on a Monday, unless my regular carer tells me on a Sunday�. One person commented, �I usually do know whose coming as you get a rota�.

People told us that they felt safe and relaxed with staff. We saw that people who used the service were well cared for by responsive and well led staff. We found that people received care and support according to their assessed needs. Where people did not have capacity to consent to their care we saw evidence that best interest meetings had been held, in accordance with the legal requirements of Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

We found that there were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Staff told us that they had received appropriate training and spoke knowledgably about the people they provided care and support to. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received.

Inspection carried out on 18, 23 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who used the service to ask them what they thought about the care they were receiving. They all provided positive feedback about the care staff they regularly saw. One person told us, "I have always found my carers excellent and we cannot fault them.

We found that the service was meeting the personal, emotional and healthcare needs of people who used the service. Care plans had been reviewed and updated within the past six months and risk assessments were in place where a specific risk had been identified.

Families we spoke with told us that they felt that that their relative's privacy and dignity were respected by staff. They told us that staff knew how to communicate with individuals to ensure that they understood their wishes. All five people who used the service told us that they felt able to raise any concerns they had with staff and that they would respond appropriately.

Relatives we spoke with also told us that they knew how to complain. One person told us that, "Staff were very friendly, kind and caring and they knew how to care for me."

We saw that staff had been provided with the appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively and safely. Staff told us that they found the manager to be supportive and approachable.

The service is regularly monitored and reviewed by the manager. There are systems in place that have ensured people who used the service have been consulted about the care received.