You are here

Precious Homes Bedfordshire Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 November 2018

Following the last inspection in October 2017 when the service was rated as Requires Improvement overall, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well Led to at least good.

At the last inspection we found an insufficient level of leadership at the home, there were concerns with the culture of the staff team. Accidents and incidents were not always processed or in a safe way. Peoples medicines were not stored safely. People were not always protected from harming themselves. Staff did not always understand what harm could look like. Staff security checks were not complete and training was not up to date. People’s confidential information was not protected and there was no complaints process in place. The provider was not completing meaningful and effective audits and responding to the issues found.

We inspected the service again in October 2018 and we found improvements had been made. The overall rating for this service is now ‘Good’.

When we inspected the service on 30, 31 October and 1 November 2018. This inspection was announced.

Precious Homes Treow house is a domiciliary care agency and a supported living service. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and younger adults who have a learning disability. The service was supporting eight people with the regulated activity of personal care. The service was supporting others but they were not receiving assistance with the regulated activity.

People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of this inspection eight people were in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 were kept safe as staff understood what harm looked like and they knew what to do about it if they had any concerns. Staff also understood what constituted discrimination, but staff did not know what they could do about it, if a person experienced discrimination.

There were safe processes in place to respond to accidents and incidents to promote people’s safety. People had detailed risk assessments and care plans in place. However, there was no evidence to confirm if staff routinely looked at these documents.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who said they responded to people’s needs in a timely way and they did not feel under pressure to rush people. People received their medicines safely and medicines were also stored safely. Staff told us that they followed good hygiene practices when they supported people with personal care and food preparation.

A person’s health need was not responded to or identified appropriately andstaff did not receive competency checks when they were supporting people alone. The management checks on new staff were not kept available in the service and were not reviewed to check these had been robust checks.

There were plans in place which staff followed when people were at risk of choking or of being an unhealthy weight.

Consent to care was sought according to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, there were some short falls with how people were supported to spend their money, when they did not have capacity to do so. Also, the service did not evidence who exactly they would share people’s sensitive information with if they needed to do this.

The provider? and staff valued and cared for the people they supp

Inspection areas



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was safe.

Incidents and accidents were well managed.

Staff knew how to protect people from discrimination and abuse.

People had risk assessments in place.

People received their medicines as prescribed. People�s medicines were stored safely.

There were safety checks on staff to help ensure people were safe.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was not always effective.

A person�s health need had not been effectively managed.

Staff competency was not meaningfully assessed.

Staff spoke positively about their inductions and support to do their jobs.

Training was up to date.

Other people�s health needs were well managed.



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated in a kind way.

The service valued and respected the people they supported.

People�s confidential information was protected.



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People had detailed assessments, care plans, and reviews.

People were asked routinely about their views on the service.

A complaint had been processed but this was not evidenced.

People had end of life plans in place.



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was well led.

There was consistent accountable management presence at the service.

Improvements had been made from the last inspection.

The provider was monitoring the quality of the service.