You are here

Apex Prime Care - Brighton Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 February 2018

This inspection took place between 20 and 29 November 2018. The inspection involved visits to the agency's office, to people’s own homes, conversations with people, their relatives, staff and professionals. The agency was given two working days’ notice of the inspection. The agency provided 70 to 80 people with a domiciliary service, for approximately 750 hours a week. Many of the people were older persons, some people also lived with long-term medical conditions and some had alcohol or substance abuse related conditions. People received a range of different support in their own homes. Some people received occasional visits, for example weekly support to enable them to have a bath. Other people needed more frequent visits, including visits several times a day to support them. This could include two care workers and the use of equipment to support their mobility. Some people needed support with medicines and meals preparation.

The service had a registered manager 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. The provider for the agency is Apex Primecare Limited, a national provider of care.

This was the service’s first inspection under Apex Primecare Limited. Services were provided to people who lived in Brighton and Hove and local areas as far as Worthing and Saltdean.

People were safeguarded against risk, including risk of abuse. The registered manager and care co-ordinators ensured a full assessment of people’s needs took place before they agreed to provide them with a service. People had relevant risk assessments completed. Where risk was identified care plans, which were regularly reviewed, were put in place to reduce risk. Staff were knowledgeable about how to ensure people’s safety, including safety from risk of abuse. Where people used equipment, staff used it safely to support them.

Where people needed support with medicines, this was done in a safe way. The registered manager reviewed medicines management regularly and developed action plans if issues were identified. Where people needed support to eat and drink, people had care plans, which staff followed, so their needs were met.

Staff understood the principals of prevention of risk of infection. Staff said they had ample supplies of items such as disposable gloves. We saw staff followed the provider’s policies and procedures when they were with people in their own homes.

There were enough staff to ensure people did not experience missed or shortened visits. Staff had been recruited in a safe way to ensure new members of staff were safe to support people.

Staff were supported by the agency so they had the skills they needed to meet their individual needs. This was through the provider’s ongoing induction and training programmes. The performance of staff was also regularly monitored, including when they worked with people in their own homes.

People were supported with accessing relevant external professionals, including their GPs and district nurses. External professionals told us the agency communicated well with them and responded appropriately to their directions.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to care. Where relevant, people had mental capacity assessments completed, and best interests meetings were recorded.

People commented on the kindness, compassion and respect they received from staff. They also said staff encouraged them in remaining as independent as they wished to be. Staff supported people’s relatives in a kindly and supportive way. Staff clearly knew people as individuals, taking their preferences into account when providing care.

People told us they received a responsive service from staff, who knew them well.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 February 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from risk of abuse.

People had assessments for risk and appropriate action taken to reduce any risks.

People were supported with taking their medicines in a safe way.

People�s risk of infection was reduced by staff who supported them appropriately.

There were enough staff, who had been safely recruited, to support people.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 February 2018

The service was effective.

Relevant assessments of people�s individual needs were completed.

Staff had the skills and experience to meet people�s needs. They were appropriately supported through both training and supervision.

People were supported to eat and drink in the way they wanted and needed.

People were supported to consent to care by staff who understood about the importance of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

There were close links established with external providers to ensure people�s health care and other needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 February 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kindly, caring staff who knew their individual needs well.

People�s independence was supported and their dignity ensured.

People and relevant others, such as their relatives, were involved in making decisions about how their care needs were to be met.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People were responded to appropriately because they received continuity of care from staff.

People had clear care plans, which set out how their individual needs were to be met. These were followed by staff.

People felt able to raise concerns and complaints. Where people did raise issues, the service�s complaints policy was followed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 February 2018

The service was well led.

People confirmed the agency was well-led.

Staff commented on the positive culture of the agency.

The provider and registered manager performed regular audits of service provision to ensure quality of service provided. Where issues were identified during audit, action plans were developed to ensure improvements were made.