You are here

Premier Care Limited - Wirral Branch Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

This inspection took place on 22 and 24 August 2018 and was announced as this is a domiciliary care company.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults. Premier Care Limited - Wirral Branch provides a domiciliary service on the Wirral and was is into three geographic areas. At the time of our visit, the service was providing support for 570 people and provided staff for three extra care schemes. There were 279 staff employed and 22 office staff, including the registered manager. At the time of inspection, a director of Premier Care Limited was also in attendance at the service.

Not everyone using Premier Care Limited - Wirral Branch receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

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 service had a registered manager in post.

During our previous inspection in June 2017 there were breaches of Regulation 12 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The overall rating of the service was ‘requires improvement’. This was because risk assessments did not give specific guidance for staff and the information in the risk assessments was sometimes contradictory and some medication administration records contained misleading information.

At this inspection we found that the service was ‘good’ and was no longer in breach of regulations. This was because improvements had been made to risk assessments, care plans and medication records.

However, we found that records management had improved but further improvements where still needed regarding processes followed for covert medication and daily logs in people’s homes. We were able to see how the service was continually improving regarding the visit times. However, the feedback we received from people was mixed as visits were not always on time. We were also told how people were not always informed of changes to either times or carers.

People's medicines were handled safely by trained staff and were given to them in accordance with their prescriptions. People's GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice about people's health needs whenever necessary.

The provider had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. We saw there were policies and procedures in place to guide staff in relation to safeguarding adults and whistleblowing. Staff received regular training and supervision to enable them to work safely and effectively. There was a complaints policy in place which people felt comfortable using if they had concerns.

Policies and procedures were in place and updated, such as safeguarding, complaints, medication and other health and safety topics. Management and quality assurance systems had been devised and were in place to drive continuous improvement and the service.

Staff understood the need to gain consent and followed legislation designed to protect people's rights and freedoms.

We saw that infection control standards were monitored and managed appropriately. We saw that the provider had an infection control policy in place to minimise the spread of infection, all staff had attended infection control training and were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 October 2018

The service was not always safe.

Records management had improved, however additional improvements were required.

Staff had been safely recruited and appropriately trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

There were appropriate risk assessments in place. Any incidents and accidents were recorded, analysed and learnt from.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service was effective.

The service was working within the principles of the MCA; people’s consent to their care was sought.

New staff members were appropriately inducted and all staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to be effective in their role.

Staff were provided with regular supervision and appraisal.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service was caring.

People told us that their dignity and privacy were respected by staff.

People we spoke with said staff were kind, very caring and helpful.

We saw that people’s confidential private information was respected and kept secure.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service was responsive.

The information contained in people’s care files was up to date, detailed and thorough.

Care documentation held in people's homes was updated and matched what was held in the office.

People told us they felt comfortable raising a complaint or a concern. Complaints were taken seriously at the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 October 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission.

The registered manager and provider conducted a series of quality audits on different areas of the service to ensure a quality service was provided for people.

The manager promoted an open and inclusive culture within the service.