Premier Homecare

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. People told us that staff They told us they were mostly involved in care planning. We found and people told us care reviews had not always taken place or were inconsistent. People’s life histories, preferences, interests, and aspirations were not always recorded in their care plan.

External healthcare professionals told us that the provider worked with them to ensure people’s needs were met.

Staff ensured that they completed a record of the care they provided during each visit. Staff knew people well.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives told us staff understood people’s care needs and that staff followed the care plan. Staff and people told us there was mostly continuity of care with people having regular carers. Professionals told us that the provider worked well with them. This meant that people received continuity of care.

The branch manager told us they were organising rotas to offer more continuity for people and staff travelling times. Most staff told us their rotas travel time had improved and knew the people they looked after and their preferences well.

Records showed people’s care provision was kept to regular staff where possibleand the branch manager was striving to continue this.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

All people we spoke with told us they knew the procedure for raising a concern or complaint to the service. The service had an information pack that they gave to individuals at the start of the service and could be given in a format that suited them such as large print or easy read. A newsletter was sent out to people and informed them who to contact should they require a different format. The provider informed staff with updates via their new electronic system.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider actively sought feedback from people via a survey. The results were positive, and no actions were required to make improvements.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We found that the service contacted relevant professionals ensuring people received the support and treatment that they required. Relatives told us that people were supported, if required, by the provider to access support from relevant healthcare professionals.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity, and staff understood people had a right to be treated fairly and equally. People and family members were positive about the care and support they were receiving and that they are supported with referrals to doctors and other health professionals when needed.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff we spoke with assured us that they were familiar with people's 'Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) records or RESPECT forms and the importance of them. Care plans stated where the location of these were within a person’s home clearly. This meant staff could inform medical professionals of people’s resuscitation wishes if a medical emergency were to occur.

Staff told us they were not currently supporting anyone with end-of-life care. Whilst we were confident the provider would hold discussions with the individual where it was appropriate or relevant, we found care plans we reviewed had no evidence of end-of-life discussions.