You are here

Archived: SureCare Charnwood and Rushcliffe Good

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

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 31 August 2018

This was the first comprehensive inspection of SureCare Charnwood and Rushcliffe at their village location near Loughborough since the regulated activity of ‘personal care’ was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

SureCare Charnwood and Rushcliffe provides a domiciliary care support service providing the regulated activity of ‘personal care’ to people living within their own homes in the community. There were 37 people receiving support at home in the villages around Loughborough, as well as in the town itself.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were completed to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide people with the support that had been agreed with them.

People’s needs had been assessed prior their service being agreed. There were plans of care in place that been developed to guide staff in providing care in partnership with people who used the service. Their care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to mitigate the risks to people. These plans provided staff with guidance and information they needed on how to minimise the identified risks.

People received care from staff that had received the right training and support to do the job. People benefitted from a service that was appropriately managed so that they received their service in a timely and reliable way. There were appropriate procedures in place to support people to manage their own medicines as part of an agreed care plan.

Staff were trained in infection control, and supplied with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as disposable gloves and aprons, to perform their roles safely.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were happy with the way that staff provided their care and support and they said they were encouraged to make decisions about how they wanted their care to be provided. Staff were responsive to people’s changing needs. They were able to demonstrate that they understood what was required of them to provide people with the care they needed to remain living independently in their local community.

People's consent was sought before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in place at the service supported this practice.

Staff had a good understanding of what safeguarding meant and the procedures for reporting abuse. The staff we spoke with were confident that any concerns they raised would be followed up appropriately by the registered manager or other senior staff.

People were cared for by staff that had access to the support, supervision, and training they needed to work effectively in their roles. There was good leadership with regard to the management of the service.

There was an effective system of quality assurance in place which ensured people consistently received a good standard of care and support. People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in accordance with their assessed needs and their preferences for how they wished to receive their care.

Arrangements were in place for the service to reflect and learn from complaints and incidents to improve safety across the service.

The provider worked in partnership with other agencies and commissioners to ensure that where improvements were needed action was taken. Communic

Inspection areas



Updated 31 August 2018

The service was safe.

People received care from competent staff that had the appropriate training and experience.

People benefitted from receiving care from staff that were mindful of their responsibilities to safeguard them from harm.

People were protected from unsafe care. Staff knew and acted upon risk associated with providing the level of care that was needed for people.



Updated 31 August 2018

The service was effective.

People were provided with the care they needed and this was regularly reviewed to ensure their needs continued to be met.

People received a reliable service. There were contingency arrangements in place to ensure the continuity of the service when staff were sick or on holiday.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of how people�s capacity to make decisions and choices about their care had to be taken into account and acted upon.



Updated 31 August 2018

The service was caring.

People benefitted from receiving care from staff that respected their individuality.

People's dignity was assured when they received care and their privacy was respected.

People received their service from staff that were conscientious, compassionate, and committed to providing good standards of care.



Updated 31 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People's care plans were person centred to reflect their individuality and their care needs.

People's care needs had been assessed prior to an agreed service being provided. Their needs were regularly reviewed with them so that the agreed service continued to meet their needs and expectations.

People were assured that appropriate and timely action would be taken if they had to complain about the service.



Updated 31 August 2018

The service was well-led.

People benefitted from receiving a service that was well organised on a daily basis as well as long term.

People's quality of care was monitored by the systems in place and timely action was taken to make improvements when necessary.

The registered manager was readily approachable and promoted a culture of openness and transparency within the service.