Archived: Primrose Home Care

Primrose Homecare Ltd is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people who live in their own homes. 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. At the time of our inspection 30 people used the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People consistently experienced good care because the service was exceptionally well-led and organised. The provider’s values were shared and practiced by staff who people often referred to as being like family members.

The provider supported people to expand their social circle and to be as active as they wanted to be in the local community. This protected people from the disadvantages of social isolation and loneliness.

People told us they felt safe because of the quality of care they experienced. The provider took exceptional care when recruiting new staff to ensure they met the values of the service. Care workers understood and practised their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm.

People were supported by care workers who had the right skills and knowledge to provide care that met people’s assessed needs. 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 consistently told us that care workers were kind and caring. They told us care workers often went the extra-mile to support them with their needs and preferences. Care workers respected people, treated them with dignity and involved them in decisions about their care.

People experienced continuity of care because they were supported by a core team of care workers who understood their needs. This meant people experienced care and support that was responsive to their needs. People consistently reported that they were very satisfied with the quality of care and support they experienced.

The provider had a clear vision of providing care and support that maintained people’s independence and quality of life. Staff were motivated by this and were committed to providing high quality care. The provider used people’s feedback to drive improvements and they continually sought ways to further enhance people’s experience of the service and to support people to be active members of their community.

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 17/09/2016).

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.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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 registered manager and management team promoted extremely strong organisational values. They promoted a caring culture that put people at the centre of everything the service did. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the needs of people using the service.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff who provided their care and support. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from harm and knew how to report any concerns about people’s safety or wellbeing. People had clearly written care plans giving staff the guidance and information they needed to support people safely.

People received care and support from staff who were trained and had the skills required to meet their needs. Staff told us they received training and were supported by the management team. People were asked for their consent before care was provided and where appropriate, people’s capacity had been assessed. People received support with menu planning and shopping when needed and were supported to access appropriate healthcare services when required.

People were supported by staff who they liked and who made them feel comfortable. People described staff as caring and told us they were happy to see them. Staff understood the importance of supporting people in a way that protected their privacy and dignity. People were supported by staff to maintain their independence.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff knew people well and were aware of people’s likes and dislikes. People were aware of who to contact if they were unhappy about any aspect of their care and support and there was a system in place to manage complaints.

Everyone we spoke with expressed their confidence in the management of the service. People using the service, relatives and staff told us they were able to give feedback about the service and were confident they would be listened to. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the standards of care and support provided and the provider was aware of their responsibilities as a registered person. Feedback from people and staff was used to develop and improve the service that was provided to people.

We considered all of the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes that we inspected. We used that information to answer five key questions. Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that people's individual needs had been assessed and that there were enough suitably trained staff to support and care for people.

Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

We saw that when people needed help and support taking their medicines systems were in place that ensured this was done safely.

The provider had arrangements in place to deal with out of hours emergencies. This meant that people would always be able to get the support they needed when the office was closed.

The manager regularly monitored the quality of the service to ensure it was safe.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.

It was clear from speaking with staff they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and they knew them well. We saw people's support plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure their changing needs were planned for.

Staff training was sufficient to meet all the needs of people using the service.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with seven people being supported by the service and four relatives. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them and their family members. Feedback from people was positive. One person told us, 'I get the same carer that's what I like.' Another person said 'Everything I want they do.' One relative told us, 'Very much on time, very reliable.'

When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

People using the service, their relatives and friends involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People's preferences and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's care plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that their changing needs were planned for.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They were confident that if they raised any issues with the manager of the service they would be addressed. One person told us, 'I would complain if necessary, I know how to.'

Is the service well-led?

The registered manager had been in post some time. It was clear from our discussions with the manager and the provider they were experienced and caring and provided good leadership based on how best to meet the needs of people in an individualised way.

Staff were supported to meet the needs of people through the provision of regular training, supervision and staff meetings that enabled good practice to be developed.

There was a system in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to ensure it was continually improved.

People we spoke with told us their consent was sought before care was given. One person said, "Yes they do ask for my consent and I am able to explain everything I need doing".

We found that people's care needs were identified in their care plans. One person said, "I get the care I need and I am happy".

People told us they felt safe. Records showed that care workers were trained in safeguarding procedures.

The provider had a process in place to ensure suitable care workers were employed to work with vulnerable people.

We found that the provider had a system to monitor the quality of service provision.