You are here

Premium Home Care Services Limited Good Also known as Home Instead Senior Care

We are carrying out a review of quality at Premium Home Care Services Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

This inspection took place on 26 October 2016 was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office.

Premium Home Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care service providing care and support to people living in their own homes. The office is based in the city of Leicester and the service currently provides care and support to people living in Leicester and Leicestershire. At the time of our inspection there were nine people using the service. People’s packages of care varied dependent upon their needs. The provider employed five caregivers.

This was our first inspection of the service since they registered with us on July 2016.

A registered manager was in post. 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 supported in their own homes with their daily care needs and support to maintain their independence. The relatives of people who used the service told us that their family members were safe and were happy with the service being provided.

Systems were in place to ensure that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider, registered manager and caregivers were trained in the safeguarding adults, understood their responsibility and were aware of the procedures to follow if they suspected that someone was at risk of harm.

People’s care records showed people’s needs had been assessed and measures were in place to manage risks. People were involved in the development of their care plan to ensure that caregivers knew how to meet people’s needs that promoted their safety and independence.

People were supported to take their medicines safely. Caregivers supported people, where required, with their meals and drinks. Records showed people were support to access healthcare services when required.

The provider’s recruitment procedures ensured that caregivers were suitable to look after. People were supported by a consistent team of caregivers who supported them and whom they felt confident with.

Relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the caregivers’ skills, knowledge, attitude and approach in how they supported their family members’. Caregivers undertook an induction and a range of training relevant to the needs of people using the service. Staff received regular support and supervision which enabled them to provide people with effective care.

Caregivers understood the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how it applied to people in their care. Caregivers sought consent from people before providing care and understood people's right to decline their care and support.

Relatives told us that they and their family member had developed positive relationships with the caregivers and the management team. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and caregivers understood their role in enabling people to maintain their welling. Caregivers recognised that some people were at risk of loneliness and isolation and therefore, ensured the time spent with people was meaningful.

Caregivers were knowledgeable about people's preferences and how they wished to be supported, which promoted their wellbeing. The registered manager updated people’s care plans to ensure caregivers had clear guidance to follow, which helped to ensure people’s needs could be monitored effectively.

The provider had a complaints policy which provided people and their relatives with clear information about how to raise any concerns and how they would be managed. Relatives were confident that any concerns raised would be responded listened to and addressed.

The provider and registered

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse. Caregivers had received training and had a good understanding of protecting people from the risk of abuse.

People's needs had been assessed and risks to their safety were identified and managed effectively by caregivers. People were supported to receive their medicines in a safe way.

Recruitment procedures included checks on caregiver’s suitability to work with people. There were enough caregivers to meet people's assessed needs and keep them safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was effective.

People received care and support from trained caregivers who understood their needs. The management team and caregivers understood and worked to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported, where required, with their dietary and healthcare needs. Caregivers liaised with health care professionals in order to maintain people’s health and welfare.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by a consistent group of caring caregivers who they had developed positive and professional relationships with. People’s care plans reflected their individual needs and preferences. Caregivers promoted people’s rights, dignity and respected their wishes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s care needs were assessed, planned and met in line with their preferences and needs. People and their relatives were involved in the regular review of their care needs.

People knew how to complain and were confident that their concerns would be addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 November 2016

The service was well led.

The service had a registered manager. The provider, registered manager and caregivers had a clear view as to the service they wished to provide which focused on enabling people to remain in their own home.

The provider and registered manager had direct oversight of the service to ensure the service was well-led. A system was in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided.