• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Surecare

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

4 Shoe Lane, Westcliff On Sea, Essex, SS0 9LL (01702) 330065

Provided and run by:
7 Day Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

6 August 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

Surecare is a domiciliary care agency supplying care services within a person's own home. Surecare provides care for people of a range of ages and with a variety of different care needs. At the time of our inspection on 6 August 2014 85 people were using the service.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. At the time of our inspection there was a manager in post but they were not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission.

People told us that they felt safe with staff working for the service and had no concerns about how they were treated. They felt that staff worked in ways that that ensured their health and safety such as using equipment correctly.

People’s needs were assessed with their involvement and care was planned and delivered in accordance with their wishes. This showed us that the service sought to work with people and support their needs in ways that they preferred.

Staff had the knowledge and skills that they needed to support people. They received training to enable them to understand people’s diverse needs and work in ways that were safe and protected people. Staff received some on-going support but this needed to be made more consistent. Not all staff had regular opportunities for one to one supervision to discuss any practice issues or training needs. Staff had a good awareness of emergency procedures so that they would act properly to support people in the event of an emergency.

When the service took on new staff they ensured that proper checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The service had procedures in place to ensure that when people needed help to manage their medicines, this was done safely with proper records kept.

Staff spoken with demonstrated a caring approach to their role and told us that they enjoyed their work. They outlined their working practices which showed us that staff worked in ways that respected people’s privacy, dignity and individuality.

People spoken with showed us that people were able to complain or raise any concerns if they needed to. We saw that where people had raised issues that these were taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The service worked well with the local authority that contracted with them and had regular meetings and quality reviewing processes in place. However, we found that the service needed to improve their practice in working with the Care Quality Commission in order that we were provided with information when needed or requested.

18 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our previous inspection of Surecare on 16 April 2013 we found them to be non-compliant with three regulations. Following our inspection the provider supplied us with an action plan detailing how they would rectify this. This inspection was carried out to ensure that those actions had been completed and that the service was now compliant with those regulations.

We found that people's needs were assessed, and that care and treatment was provided according to their care needs. Information relating to people's needs and preferences was consistent throughout the care record. This was an improvement from our previous inspection.

We found that the provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service provision. The system for recording and updating action on complaints had been refined and we could easily see that complaints were investigated and followed up.

16 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak with many people using the service due people not answering the telephone, therefore we have used the information given to us by people we were able to speak to and also information given in feedback forms at reviews.

Overall the comments were that the regular care staff were good and friendly. They knew what they were doing however when those staff were unavailable the care experience was not always as it should be. One person told us that they were getting sufficient care but it wasn't done very well. On further clarification they felt that organisation on the management side was lacking.

We saw that were concerns had been raised around possible abuse the provider had taken appropriate action. We saw from complaints logs and from talking with people that whilst some complaints were dealt with satisfactorily, other complaints were not.

We found that although there were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service these were not robust enough to identify failings in some of the systems.

The overall picture of the service is mixed and the responses from people using the service reflects this. When the systems in place work the provision and experience of care is good, but some systems are not working effectively and this can result in a poor care experience.