We carried out a review of the data available to us about Care Preference Ltd 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 Care Preference Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Care Preference Ltd is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service provides planned visits and 24-hour support to people who may be living with a neuromuscular disease or other physical disabilities.
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 there were 39 people receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People spoke positively about the service and felt it was safe and staff were caring. One person told us, “The carers are dedicated. They are very reliable and provide high quality care.” Another person said, “I am absolutely [safe]. They do everything and anything I ask them to do. Staff are top quality.”
People's safety was promoted because care was person-centred and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Potential risks that people faced had been identified, assessed and were regularly reviewed, and staff knew how to keep people safe from abuse or harm.
Safe recruitment processes were followed and there were enough appropriately trained staff to meet people's individual needs. Medicines when needed were dispensed and administered by staff who had received training to do so.
Staff had good access to personal protective equipment to manage the risks associated with the spread of infection.
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 well-led by a management team who maintained good oversight of the service and were passionate about delivering quality care and achieving the best possible outcomes for people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 December 2019) and there was a breach of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.
Why we inspected
We carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service on 22, 23 and 30 October 2019. Breaches of a legal requirement were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve regulation 17 (Good governance). We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements.
This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements. For the key question not inspected, we used the rating awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Care Preference Ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Care Preference Ltd is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service provides planned visits and 24-hour support to people who may be living with a neuromuscular disease or other physical disabilities.
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 inspection, the service was supporting 28 people with a regulated activity.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Where recommendations were made at the last inspection, action had not always been taken in response. Governance systems in place were not always effective and staff recruitment was not consistently robust.
Accidents and incidents were investigated but outcomes were not always analysed to help improve the service. People received support with their medicines as assessed. However, some improvements were required to medication records.
People told us they felt safe. Infection control procedures were in place to reduce the risk of spread of infection.
People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. They were supported to access health care services. We received positive feedback from health care professionals. 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.
Staff treated people with respect. It was clear people had positive relationships with their support staff who they had helped to select based on their own similar interests. People were supported and empowered to make their own decisions.
People received person centred care and staffing was organised and adapted to meet people’s wishes and needs. People were fully supported with their social interests. People’s end of life wishes had not always been explored and the provider planned to review this.
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 26 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Enforcement
We have identified a breach in the governance of the service. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
At this inspection we also recognised that the provider had failed to tell us of notifiable incidents. This was a breach of regulation. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to this is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We inspected this service on 2 and 17 March 2017. The inspection was announced. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our visit, because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location offices when we visited. At the time of our inspection, 18 people were using the service.
This was the first inspection of this location since it was registered in September 2016.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager as a condition of registration for this service. 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. At the time of our inspection, the service had a registered manager and as such the registered provider was compliant with this condition of their registration.
People who used the service told us they felt safe. People’s needs were assessed and care plans and risk assessments were put in place to guide staff on how to provide safe care and support. People told us staff were reliable and their rotas were always covered. There were systems in place to support staff to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns.
The registered provider involved people who used the service in recruiting suitable staff. However, recruitment checks had not always been completed before new staff started shadowing. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.
People were supported where necessary to take prescribed medicines and we received positive feedback about this aspect of their care and support.
Staff received training to support them to provide effective care. Training reports were completed to check and evidence staff’s competency. There was a system of on-going supervision and competency checks to ensure staff were providing safe care.
People who used the service were supported, where necessary, to ensure they ate and drank enough. Guidance from healthcare professionals was incorporated into people’s care plans and people were supported to access healthcare services.
People who used the service provided consistently positive feedback about the kind and caring staff. People had their own team of carers and were involved in recruiting new staff to their team to ensure that they were compatible. People had developed positive caring relationships with the staff that supported them. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.
The service was person-centred. People who used the service were actively involved in coordinating and making decisions about their care and support. People told us staff promoted their independence. Care plans and risk assessments were person centred. People who used the service felt able to raise any issues or concerns and told us the registered manager was responsive to feedback.
The service was well-led. There was a strong person centred culture within the service. The registered manager was responsive to people’s feedback and motivated to provide a ‘bespoke’ service which met people’s needs and enhanced their quality of life.