You are here

Archived: Supreme Healthcare services Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 3 March 2016

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 January 2016 and was unannounced. Supreme Healthcare Services is a domiciliary care service and at the time of the inspection was providing personal care to eighteen people living in their own homes.

At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in post. However, there was a manager in charge of the day to day running of the service who was in the process of applying to the Care Quality Commission to become registered. 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 and their relatives were happy with the service they received from Supreme Healthcare Services. They told us they felt safe using the service. People said they were treated with kindness and they were shown respect. People’s dignity was preserved when they received personal care and they were supported to remain as independent as they wished. People received their medicines when they required them and medicines were managed safely.

Risks to people and staff were assessed and managed effectively. Staff had good knowledge and showed awareness of how to keep people safe. They understood the policies and procedures used to safeguard people. They were confident that any concerns that might be reported would be addressed by the management. Recruitment procedures were effective and helped to ensure suitable staff were employed to care for people.

The provider had policies and procedures designed to deal with emergency situations. Staff showed knowledge and understanding of how to deal with emergencies.

People’s right to make decisions was protected. Staff sought people’s consent before providing support and care. People were treated as individuals and the support planned was focussed on them. People and where appropriate their relatives had been involved in making decisions about their care. They felt involved in discussions and told us their views were listened to.

Staff received on-going training. They were supported through one to one supervision meetings and team meetings. This helped to ensure they had the skills to care for people safely and effectively. They were offered opportunities to develop their skills further and gain qualifications. Staff were comfortable to approach the manager for advice. Regular communication from the manager to the staff team in the form of memos provided additional support and guidance.

Where there were concerns regarding a person’s well-being, staff contacted healthcare professionals promptly to seek advice. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink when this was part of their identified care needs. Up to date information concerning people or changes to their care was communicated promptly to staff.

Feedback was sought from people using the service and other stakeholders. This helped the manager to monitor the quality of the service. The service was effectively monitored by the quality director and the manager. A complaints policy was available. When complaints had been raised they had been investigated and resolved appropriately.

Inspection areas



Updated 3 March 2016

The service was safe.

People felt safe when being supported by the staff. Staff understood their responsibilities and how to keep people safe.

Risks were identified and managed to protect people and staff.

Recruitment procedures were robust which helped to ensure suitable staff were employed by the service.



Updated 3 March 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received effective training and support.

Staff reported concerns about people’s wellbeing and appropriate professional support was sought promptly.

People’s rights were protected by staff who understood the need to gain consent before providing care.



Updated 3 March 2016

The service was caring.

People felt they were treated with kindness and care.

People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as they wished to be.

People’s choices and preferences were respected.



Updated 3 March 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and reviewed. They were involved in planning their care and said they were listened to.

People were asked to give feedback on the service and knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern if necessary.

People said the service was flexible and responded to their needs.



Updated 3 March 2016

The service was well-led.

People, their relatives and staff felt the agency was well led.

The manager was approachable and acted promptly when necessary.

The quality of the service was monitored and action taken when issues were identified.