You are here

Archived: Premier Care Limited - Rochdale Branch Requires improvement

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 April 2016

Premier Care Rochdale provides help and support to people with varying needs enabling them to remain in their own homes and be as independent as possible. The agency offers a variety of services including assistance with personal care, domestic tasks, meal preparation and shopping. The agency office is situated in Rochdale, close to the town centre. At the time of our inspection, the agency was supporting 96 people living across Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton.

This was an announced inspection on the 9 and 10 March 2016. We gave the agency 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that the manager would be in. We also contacted people who used the service and their relatives on the 15 March 2015, to seek their views about the service received.

We last inspected Premier Care Rochdale in September 2014 at which time it was compliant with all the regulations we assessed.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection, there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

We found three breaches in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found potential risks to people had not been adequately assessed and planned for so that people were protected from potential harm or injury.

On review of people’s records we found that information gathered in the summary plan did not reflect people’s needs and wishes and were not always completed in full and some records were not signed or dated.

All the people we spoke with said they would speak with office staff if they had any complaints or concerns. However, effective systems of recording people’s complaints and concerns were not in place to show that people were listened to and where necessary action had been taken.

People told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff had completed training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew the action they should take if they had any concerns. Suitable arrangements were in place where the agency had access to people’s house keys and finances. These systems helped protect people who used the service.

Systems were in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines. The agency was to introduce a better way of monitoring medication administration so that any shortfalls identified could be quickly acted upon.

Sufficient numbers of staff were available to provide flexibility of support. People spoke positively about the staff and said they were generally on time, although recognised there were occasions when staff may run late.

Recruitment checks were completed before staff commenced work. However, records did not address all areas of the agency’s policies and procedure to ensure all detailed information about the suitability of candidates was gathered.

People were involved in discussions regarding their support and signed their agreement on their care records. Staff received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were aware of the importance of seeking people’s permission before carrying out tasks.

Staff received induction, supervision and a programme of training to help ensure they were able to deliver effective care. Staff spoken with confirmed they received regularly training and were equipped to support the needs of people they visited.

Suitable arrangements were in place to help ensure people’s health and nutritional needs were met.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care received and that staff supported them i

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was not always safe.

We found potential risks to people had not been adequately assessed and planned for so that people were protected from potential harm or injury.

Relevant recruitment checks had been carried out. However information did not include all records as detailed in the agency policy and procedure.

Systems were in place to help ensure the safe administration of medicines. A better system of checking medication had been administered as prescribed was to be introduced.

People who used the service told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff had received training in how to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse and understood what action to take if they had any concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was effective

Staff received the induction, training and supervision they needed to help ensure they provided effective care and support.

Staff received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and recognised the importance of seeking people�s permission before carrying our tasks.

People who used the service received appropriate support to ensure their health and nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was caring.

People spoke positively about the care and support offered by staff. We were told staff were kind, caring and respectful towards them.

Those staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate they knew the people they supported well. Staff expressed how they promoted people�s independence and offered privacy and dignity when providing care.

People�s records were stored securely so that people�s confidentiality was maintained.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was not always responsive.

People had assessments and care plans in place. However, information did not provide clear and accurate information to guide staff about what people wanted and needed.

Systems needed to be improved to show that people�s complaints and concerns were taken seriously and responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 April 2016

The service was well-led.

There was a manager in place who was registered with the Care Quality Commission.

Both people who used the service and staff spoke highly about the registered manager and directors of the service.

A number of monitoring systems were in place to review the service provided and people and staff were encouraged to share their views and experiences. This helped to promote continuous improvements.