We carried out a review of the data available to us about SureCare Coventry & South Warwickshire 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 SureCare Coventry & South Warwickshire, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
SureCare Coventry & South Warwickshire is a domiciliary care agency which is registered to provide personal care and support to people in their own homes. Support is provided to children, younger adults and older people, living with mental health support needs, physical and sensory impairments and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 25 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 and relatives were very satisfied with the service provided and the way the service was managed. The registered manager and staff shared a passion to provide individualised, responsive care and worked in partnership with people, relatives and other professionals to achieve this.
Relatives had confidence in staff’s ability to deliver care safely. People received their care calls at the times they expected, for the length of time agreed and from staff they knew. Medicines and risk associated with people’s care was well-managed, and in- line with legislative requirements and best practice guidelines. Staff followed good infection prevention and control practices to keep people and themselves safe.
The registered manager and staff worked within the requirements and principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people. 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.
The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture. The service provided was tailored to each person’s needs and designed to maximise choice and control. People’s rights were respected, promoted and upheld. The registered manager and staff worked flexible to ensure good outcomes for people and their families.
People and relatives described staff as trustworthy, caring and considerate. Staff had a very good understanding of people’s needs and what was important to them. Staff used a range of communication methods to ensure people were able to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care. People’s care plans were personalised, detailed and up to date. This meant staff had the information they needed to provide care safely.
People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager describing them as, ‘always accessible, easy to talk to, supportive and responsive’. Relatives felt able to raise issue with the registered manager and were confident these would be addressed. Staff felt supported and valued by the management team. The management team completed regular checks to monitor the quality and safety of service provided. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views about the service to drive forward improvements. Relative’s told us their consistently positive experiences meant they would recommend the service.
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 (published 18 November 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned pilot virtual inspection. The report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the Provider.
The pilot inspection considered the key questions of safe and well-led and provide a rating for those key questions. Only parts of the effective, caring and responsive key questions were considered, and therefore the ratings for these key questions are those awarded at the last inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for SureCare Coventry and South Warwickshire on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
This was the first inspection of SureCare Coventry & South Warwickshire since registering with the Care Quality Commission in November 2016.
The service had a registered manager. A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have 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. The registered manager is also the provider for this service and is referred to as the provider throughout this report.
Relatives were confident people felt safe with their care workers and care workers understood how to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and care workers understood how these should be managed to ensure they kept people and themselves safe.
Care workers had been recruited safely and received a comprehensive induction when they began working at the service to prepare them for their role. There were enough suitably qualified care workers to provide all planned care calls to meet people’s individual needs. The on-going training care workers received equipped them with the skills and knowledge needed to support people effectively.
People received their care calls from care workers they knew and with whom they shared a common interest. Care calls were consistently made at, and for the length of the time agreed. Care workers practices were regularly checked to make sure they worked in line with the provider’s policies and procedures.
The provider understood their responsibility to comply with the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to make decisions about their care and support. Care workers gained people’s consent before they provided personal care and respected people’s decisions and choices.
People were supported with dignity and respect and, where possible, their independence was encouraged. Relatives felt care workers were respectful and caring. Care workers supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing and to see healthcare and social care professionals when needed. Systems were in place to manage people’s medicines safely and care workers had received training to do this.
Relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their family members care and support. Care workers understood people's needs and abilities because they read care plans and shadowed experienced staff when they started working for the service. Care records reflected people’s current needs and gave care workers the information needed to ensure care and support was provided in a way which respected people’s differences and preferences.
Relatives and care workers felt the provider was approachable. Care workers felt supported and valued by the provider who was ‘always’ available to provide guidance and advice. Relatives knew how to raise any concerns or complaints and were confident any issues raised would be listened and responded to effectively.
The provider and care workers shared common values about the aims and objectives of the service. The provider had established effective procedures to check and monitor the quality and safety of the service people received and regularly sought feedback from people and their relatives. Relatives were very satisfied with the service provided and the way the service was managed.