We carried out a review of the data available to us about FirstCare-Bedfordshire & MK 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 FirstCare-Bedfordshire & MK, you can give feedback on this service.
Firstcare (GB) Bedfordshire and MK is a care agency providing care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to 75 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe and trusted staff. Staff had received training to recognise and report signs of abuse. Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and staff knew how to support people to help keep them safe.
Safe recruitment processes were in place and staff received a thorough induction to familiarise themselves with the expectations of their role and the values of the service. They received good quality training and supervision to help them to acquire the skills and knowledge to fulfil their role and responsibilities.
Where required, people were supported to have enough to eat and drink, and to take their medicines as prescribed.
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 told us staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People's independence was promoted and encouraged by staff.
People’s needs were assessed before the service provided them with care or support. Care plans were developed from these assessments that gave guidance to staff about people’s needs and preferences. People and their relatives, where appropriate were involved in this process.
The registered manager was open and transparent and promoted a person-centred culture within the service.
Systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service, and to seek the views of the people who used it.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (report published 20 April 2017). Since this rating was awarded the service has moved premises. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Princeton Court provides personal care to people who live in their own homes in order for them to maintain their independence. At the time of our inspection the provider confirmed they were providing personal care to approximately 80 people.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
There was 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.
Staff had a good understanding of the different types of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse. Staff were confident that the right action would be taken should they report any abuse within the service. Risk assessments were in place to support people and staff to reduce the risks that may be present within various areas of people’s lives. They enabled people to be as independent as possible. Staffing levels were adequate to meet people's current needs. People told us that staff arrived on time and did not miss any calls. The staff recruitment procedures that were in place ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out. This ensured only suitable staff worked at the service and people were supported safely. People told us that their medicines were administered safely and on time. The medication records we looked at were completed accurately and were regularly audited.
Staff induction and on-going training was provided to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles. Training was provided for the specific needs of the people being supported, and staff felt that they were suitably trained to support a variety of needs. Staff were well supported by the registered manager and senior team, and had regular one to one supervisions so that they could discuss their work and set targets. People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. People were able to choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with this when required. People were supported to access health appointments when necessary, and the service was able to make referrals to various health professionals to support people’s needs.
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. People and their relatives were happy that they were able to develop positive relationships with the staff that came in to their homes.
People felt involved in their own care planning and were able to contribute to the way in which they were supported. People’s views were recorded at reviews and updated accordingly. The service had a complaints procedure in place to ensure that people and their families were able to provide feedback about their care and to help the service make improvements where required. The people we spoke with knew how to use it.
Quality monitoring systems and processes were used effectively to drive future improvement and identify where action was needed. Detailed and thorough audits took place regularly.
Princeton Court is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and live in care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service provided approximately 70 packages of personal care and support.
The inspection took place on 11, 16 and 17 March 2015.
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 felt safe and were protected from the risk of abuse.
Staff were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and there were suitable systems in place for recording, reporting and investigating incidents.
Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and staff used these to assist people to remain as independent as possible.
Staff numbers were based upon the amount of care that people required, in conjunction with their assessed dependency levels.
Staff had been recruited using effective recruitment processes so that people were kept safe and free from harm.
Medicines were stored, administered and handled safely.
Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of individual people they supported. They supported people to make choices about their care and daily lives.
Staff attended a variety of training to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. They were further supported with supervision by senior staff.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff knew how to use them to protect people who were unable to make decisions for themselves.
People could make choices about their food and drink. They were provided with support when required to prepare meals if this was an assessed part of their package of care.
Prompt action was taken in response to illness or changes in people’s physical and mental health. They were supported to access health care professionals when required.
Staff were caring and ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.
People and their relatives were involved in making decisions and planning individual care.
People had been made aware of the complaints process and knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.
People felt dissatisfied that office staff did not always communicate effectively with them and were not always updated when staffing rotas had been changed or calls were going to be delayed.
The registered manager and senior staff reviewed the quality of care people received and encouraged feedback from people and their representatives, to identify, plan and make improvements to the service.
We saw that people's needs had been assessed, and appropriate support plans and risk assessments were in place. We found people's support plans were reviewed regularly and when people's needs changed. Their consent was sought prior to any care or treatment being delivered.
The provider had effective staff recruitment processes in place and had sufficient staff. In addition, staff were supported to acquire additional training in order to effectively meet people's individual needs.
We found the provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service they provided. They also had an effective system to manage complaints.
People said that they felt staff provided the care and support they needed and that staff treated them with respect and were mindful of their privacy and dignity when providing care.
People told us that they felt staff listened to them and that staff encouraged them to maintain their independence whenever possible. They were confident that the manager would listen to and address any issues they raised.