We carried out a review of the data available to us about Precious Support Services on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Precious Support Services, you can give feedback on this service.
Precious Support Service is a domiciliary care agency. People had individual packages of care which ranged from 24-hour care to shorter care calls several times per day. At the time of this inspection Precious Support Service supported 42 people with personal care. This included younger and older adults who required support due to learning disabilities, autism or older age. Other services were offered to people by the provider such as help with shopping and cleaning, but these are not regulated activities and therefore we did not look at these.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
Relatives felt their loved one was safe with staff supporting them in their own homes. Staff had been trained to protect people from the risks of abuse and understood how to keep people safe and embraced team working to reduce potential risks to people. Infection control procedures were in place to protect people from the spread of infectious disease and COVID-19.
People and their relatives were involved in initial assessments which took place before packages of care commenced. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The provider's policies and systems supported this practice.
People received care from staff who were trained, motivated and supported by a registered manager who led the staff team to provide the best care they could. People using the service benefited from a well led service. Partnership working enabled people to maintain their wellbeing. Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place to provide information on how the service could be continuously improved.
Rating at last inspection: At the previous inspection in September 2019 the service was rated Good in all areas. At this inspection we have continued to rate the service as Good in all areas.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Why we inspected
We inspected due to possible risk identified through a recent complaint. This was a focussed inspection where we only looked at three key areas.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
Precious Support Services is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes, including older people who have a physical disability or people living with dementia.
At the time of our visit the agency supported 46 people. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is to help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do provider personal care, staff also consider any wider social care provided. The agency supported 39 people who received personal care. Some people who received personal care required support 24 hours a day as a ‘live in’ service, while other people received support at pre-arranged times. Care calls were a minimum 30 minutes.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives were very complimentary about the support they received. A typical comment was, “We can’t fault them.”
People felt safe with care staff who supported them in their own homes. Relatives said staff were respectful of people’s environment, personal belongings and how they wanted their care provided. Staff knew how to protect people’s safety and welfare. Care staff were trained in safeguarding adults and staff understood how to protect people from abuse and poor practice.
The providers recruitment processes continued to recruit staff with the right attitudes and values. There were enough staff to ensure people’s care calls were completed on time and for the right amount of time, by a consistent staff team who knew people’s needs and routines.
Safe procedures to manage people's medicines and to prevent the risk of infection were understood and followed by staff. Regular checks ensured potential risks or errors were kept to a minimum.
People and their relatives made decisions about their care and were supported by staff who understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People described staff as thoughtful, kind, caring and respectful. People felt comfortable when they received support because staff respected their individual rights to privacy, dignity as well as promoting their independence.
Care plans were personalised to support the person centred care the registered manager described was fundamental to their service. Some care plans we reviewed needed updating to ensure staff continued to provide the care people needed.
People were in control of how their care was delivered and ongoing reviews ensured it remained what people needed. Staff got to know people well, especially their individual routines and preferences.
The provider’s governance systems were operated and managed effectively to ensure good care outcomes for people that continued to meet their needs. Daily records and medicines records completed in people’s homes were regularly checked so any issues could be addressed without delay.
There was an experienced registered manager who was also the owner/provider. The registered manager and office staff team provided strong support to people they cared for and to their staff team. The registered manager was committed to providing a good quality service to people. It was evident they followed their own philosophy which was to ‘stay small because we know everyone’. People, relatives and staff found the management team open, approachable and responsive and they trusted the provider.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was Good (published 1 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned and announced inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The previous ‘good’ service provided to people had remained consistent.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
The registered provider, Precious Support Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency which provides support and care to adults with a physical disability or mental health difficulties in their own home. The majority of people receiving a service lived alone, whilst others lived with family members or shared accommodation with live in carers. At the time of our inspection, the agency was providing personal care to 76 people.
The service had a registered manager. 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 told us they felt safe and comfortable with the care workers employed to meet their needs. Care workers knew their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse and received training to assist them. People's legal rights were protected and care workers ensured people's right to make decisions were respected. We found people were supported with their medication by care workers who were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines safely and as prescribed.
The provider conducted risk assessments which identified specific risks for each person and gave guidance to care workers about how they could assist people in a way which promoted their independence and choice. Assessments were reviewed regularly so staff had accurate information to refer to.
The provider’s rota system was flexible enough to ensure care workers could safely meet people's needs at the times they agreed. People and their relatives told us they enjoyed the time they spent with their care workers and were confident care workers had the skills and training to undertake the care being provided.
The provider had a clear system for employing new staff and ensured pre-employment checks were conducted prior to staff starting work to confirm workers could be safely employed. Care workers we spoke with confirmed they had not been able to work until relevant employment checks had been completed.
People were able to make choices about the way their care was provided and were supported to do so. Care plans focussed on the individual care and support needs of the person, and copies were stored securely at the main office and where appropriate at people’s homes. Care workers were responsive to people's needs and where people's needs changed they ensured office staff were informed so care plans were adjusted to reflect the change. We found the care plans provided details about people’s preferred methods of communication, favourite activities and personal choices and that these preferences were known to the care workers.
People had access to health professionals when needed and the provider advocated on behalf of people to ensure appropriate health care was provided. People and their relatives knew what to do if they had any concerns about their care, and the provider responded positively to any issues or complaints raised.
The Care workers we spoke with felt senior management were supportive and confirmed they had regular one to one meetings, appraisals and team meetings. Staff had access to training and professional development and a system was in place to ensure training was up to date. Care workers received training on mental capacity and demonstrated an understanding and worked within, the principals of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).
We found the provider had systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service and obtained feedback on the service provided. Care workers were given responsibility and were involved in the day to day running of the service. They felt able to make suggestions about how the service could improve. We also found the views of people and their relatives about the service were listened to and appropriate actions were taken to improve the service people received.