The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Prime Care Support Limited - Chesham

Unit 8, Chiltern Court, Asheridge Road, Chesham, Buckinghamshire, HP5 2PX (01494) 791227

Provided and run by:
Primecare Support Limited

All Inspections

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

When we visited Prime Care Support Limited Chesham in May 2013, we found non-compliance with the management of medicines and a compliance action was set. This was because the organisation's medication policy and procedure was not followed which had the potential to place people at risk of harm.

A further compliance action was made because there had been a slippage in providing staff with regular formal supervisions and an appraisal of their work. This did not ensure the development of staff was supported through a regular system of supervision and appraisal.

The provider wrote and provided us with documentation to show a new medication policy and procedure was in place, which all staff had been trained and familiarised with. Further documentation showed a system to monitor staff practices in relation to completing people's MAR and daily care notes had been implemented. Any issues had been picked up and addressed. This showed appropriate actions had been undertaken to ensure people's medication needs were met appropriately and safely.

We were also provided with documentation to evidence staff had received supervisions since our previous inspection and further dates were booked up to the end of March 2014 for a further five supervisions and a staff appraisal. This meant appropriate actions had been taken to ensure staff were supported through supervision and appraisals of their work.

24 May 2013

During a routine inspection

People's health, social and personal care needs were assessed before they received a service. Decisions relating to their care needs were discussed with them and family members or other representatives. This ensured their needs could be met appropriately.

Care plans addressed people's individual needs and were reviewed regularly to ensure the care and support provided was current. Risk assessments were undertaken to ensure risk management strategies were implemented for each individual so they remained safe.

Medicines were not being managed safely which had the potential to place people at risk.

The service had a robust recruitment and vetting procedure in place to ensure suitable staff worked with people who used the service.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who entered their homes to provide them with support and knew who to speak to if they had any concerns.

People described staff as 'very good and well trained'. Comments included 'They respect my wishes', 'They do all that's agreed in the care plan and never seem hurried'. A relative added 'They are well trained and confident, they meet my daughter's needs well. We get the same team of carers and have never had to make a complaint.'

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We followed up two areas of non-compliance identified in our previous review. We reviewed detailed evidence submitted by the provider and spoke to stakeholders. This provided assurance the provider had taken effective action and had achieved compliance in these two areas.

26 June 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity. They told us that staff usually asked them what they wanted done in the time available to them. Two people told us that they did not always get their visits at the time they preferred. However, one person said that they had been able to talk to the 'office' about this and some improvement had been noticed.

People confirmed that there was a care plan in their home. This included daily notes, filled in by their carer each visit.

People made a range of assessments about the reliability and flexibility of their service. One person said that it was both reliable and flexible.Three people said that it was inflexible with one person saying it was "'utterly unreliable".

All of the people we spoke with told us that they were very satisfied with the quality of care they received from care staff."Carers very polite" and "there is nothing wrong with the carers" were two comments made.

A common concern was poor continuity of care with a large number of different care staff involved in providing their care. Other concerns were a lack of information about changes to the time of their care and who was delivering it and inaccurate times given for their care. One person told us that the time of their care visits could vary by more than half an hour and another that their evening call could be anywhere between six and nine.

One person told us that they did not have information sent to them about who was providing their care next week. They said that they had been told that they could have this if they paid a charge of '5.

The local authority informed us that in the period January to June 2012 three people had contacted them to complain about poor standards of care experienced and late calls.

Although they told us that they experienced poor consistency of care, people who use the service told us that once the care workers had arrived they provided a good standard of care. They also told us that care workers could be pressured for time when they had additional calls to make.

People told us they had problems communicating with the office as when they called, calls were not always answered. This in turn made giving feedback difficult. Two people told us that they did not think anyone listened to what they said. However one person said that when they had raised a concern about the time of their call it had been altered. People confirmed that they were contacted periodically to discuss their views about the quality of the service.