Premier Homecare

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

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service to ensure their needs could be met. This was not always by the service and sometimes was a shared assessment from the local authority. These assessments formed the basis of care plans. We did not find evidence to show that all care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. This put people at risk of their care needs and preferences not being accurately updated and reflected within their care plans. The branch manager was actively reviewing and updating peoples care plans as they moved them over to the services new electronic call monitoring system.

Relatives and people told us they were involved in their initial care planning.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

All the people we spoke with expressed how they felt in control of their care needs. Staff we spoke with knew the people they were supporting well and were adjusting to the new electronic care system in place. The service manager told us that the move to a fully electronic system in has been a large change for staff and acknowledged there has been some learning along the process but has improved the delivery of care directly for carers and as a service. Staff told us how they would escalate concerns around people’s health and care and gave examples of this.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff we spoke with expressed they felt they worked well as a team and had a shared dedication for caring for people who use the service. Staff understood the process of working with other services and could demonstrate examples of this. Care plans we reviewed contained other services they were working alongside as well as their contact details for staff to use. The service manager understood the processes of tendering (a formal process of bidding for contracts) with the local authority. Staff and people told us how the on-call system had been difficult to get hold of but since the placement of an on-call coordinator this had improved.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

All the people we spoke with told us that the service supported them to live healthier lives and promoted their independence. One relative told us, “Once when my [relative] was sent home from hospital, they organised help on the spot without any notice as I was desperate so I'm really happy with this.” One person told us, “[staff] have been very supportive of me and non-judgemental when I haven't been able to cope.”

Staff told us what they would do if they had concerns around a person who was at risk of malnutrition or dehydration. Staff told us they always record what a person has chosen to eat and drink including the amount when appropriate. We reviewed care records, and they evidenced that people were encouraged to choose a meal, and a drink and staff recorded these choices in people’s daily records.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff we spoke with told us how they monitored people’s health within the service. Staff assured us they knew how to seek medical advice appropriately.

The service asked people and staff for feedback in annual surveys. Responses were analysed as a service and shared as a wider organisation.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We reviewed daily care notes and saw consistent evidence of consent being sought. Feedback from relatives and people supported that staff engage during visits and are kind and caring. One person told us “[staff] are very respectful when dealing with my personal care and ask my permission before doing a task”.

Staff and managers worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA). Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLs and told us how people have the right to choice. During our feedback to the service, we asked for mental capacity assessments to be reviewed which the branch manager acknowledged and said would be done as part of the wider care plan reviews being conducted by the service.