We carried out a review of the data available to us about Premier Community Services 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 Premier Community Services, you can give feedback on this service.
Premier Community Service is a domiciliary care service. They provide assistance to older people, and people living with disabilities who require support with personal care and daily living tasks. The agency is based in Exmouth and provides a service to people living in Exmouth and the surrounding area. At the time of this inspection they provided personal care to approximately 48 people.
At our last inspection we rated the service as Good overall. We rated the Safe domain as requires improvement because satisfactory recruitment checks had not been carried out. At this inspection we found action had been taken to address the previous issues we found relating to recruitment. This domain is now rated as Good. The evidence continued to support the rating of Good overall and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good
There was a registered manager in post. 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. The registered manager is also the provider.
People told us they felt safe. Care was taken to recruit and select the right staff for the job. Recruitment processes helped the provider choose applicants with the right values and caring qualities for the job. Staff had received training on safeguarding and knew how to identify and report any concerns about potential abuse.
Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and staff had been given information and training about these as well. Staff understood specific health conditions and knew how to recognise signs of illness and when to seek medical intervention. People were supported to manage their medicines safely.
People told us the service was effective. Comments included “I have been having wonderful care from this agency” and “I have no problems whatsoever. I would recommend them to anyone.” People received a reliable service from small teams of staff who knew them well and understood their needs. Staff were well trained and well supported. Staff had the skills and information they needed to ensure people’s needs were fully 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 the service supported this practice. Consent to care and treatment was always sought in line with legislation and guidance. The service understood their legal responsibility to ensure they complied with the Mental Capacity Act. People receive support from staff who respected and promoted equality and diversity.
People told us the staff were always caring. Comments from people included “They are good, kind, caring and professional”, “The carers behave like friends and I look forward to seeing them” and “They are all very kind.” Staff were compassionate and understood the things that mattered to people. We heard examples of how they had made a positive difference to people’s lives and how the staff sometimes went above and beyond their regular duties to make sure people were happy and safe.
People received a service that was responsive to their changing needs. People received personalised and responsive care from staff who knew and understood their needs. Support plans were drawn up and agreed with people before the service began. The plans were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure staff always had access to up-to-date information about all aspects of the person’s needs. People were given information about the service, including a copy of their support plan.
People told us the service was well managed. The provider had quality monitoring processes in place to ensure the service was constantly improving. Spot checks were carried out regularly by a member of the management team to check the quality of the care staff provided to people. The provider’s electronic care planning system enabled the management team to monitor the service throughout each working day. The views of people who used the service, relatives and staff had been sought in various ways and these were acted upon. Concerns and complaints were responded and listened to and used to improve the quality of care. A member of staff told us, “I believe that we are all a team at Premier and a great one at that. Everyone works so hard to give our clients the best life they can and we do our upmost to accommodate our clients wishes and preferences”.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 21 and 29 January 2016 and was announced. The provider was given short notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. We previously inspected the service in March 2014 and did not identify any concerns or breaches of regulations.
Premier Community Services is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to 44 people living in their own homes. Areas which the service covers includes Exmouth and the surrounding areas of East Devon including Newton Poppleford, Budleigh Salterton, Exton, East Budleigh and Lympstone. The provider said they were looking to expand their services further afield. Visits ranged from half an hour up to nearly seven hours. The frequency of visits ranged from one visit per week to four visits per day depending on people’s individual needs.
This location is required to have a registered manager as a condition of its registration. When we visited there was a manager in post who had started an application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the registered manager of the agency. The previous registered manager had left their position at the end of September 2015 and had made an application to CQC to deregister as the registered manager of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.
Improvements were needed to the agency’s recruitment process, which were addressed by the end of the inspection. People felt safe and supported by staff in their homes.
People and their relatives said they were well supported by the staff. People said staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff we spoke with recognised the different types of abuse. There were systems in place to guide staff in reporting any concerns.
Staffing arrangements were flexible in order to meet people’s individual needs. Staff received a range of training and regular support to keep their skills up to date in order to support people appropriately. Staff spoke positively about the new manager and how the management team worked well with them, encouraged team working and promoted an open culture.
Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to people’s’ needs. People were supported to receive their medicines by staff that were trained and knowledgeable about the risks associated with them.
Staff really knew people well, took people’s preferences into account and respected them. The office team were responsive to changes in people’s needs and shared information effectively.
Staff were knowledgeable about ensuring people gave their consent to the support they received. They demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.
People were supported to eat and drink well when needed. Relatives told us they were always involved as part of the team to support their family member. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the right care and treatment.
People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints and the registered provider had arrangements in place to ensure people were listened to and action taken if required. Staff were encouraged to be involved in regular meetings to share their views and concerns about the quality of the service.
The provider had a quality monitoring system at the service. The provider actively sought the views of people, their relatives and staff.
Care workers had not received up to date training and had not received regular supervision or appraisals. There was no robust system in place to ensure checks or audits were carried out to identify, monitor and manage risks to people.
Following the inspection the provider wrote to us and, in a detailed action plan, described the arrangements that would be put in to place to achieve compliance. We visited the agency on the 19th March we found that the provider had made all the necessary improvements to become compliant within these areas.
During our inspection, we spoke with the owners, an administrator and three members of care staff. They demonstrated a good knowledge of the care needs of people who received a service.
We found peoples' views and experiences had been taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. People's privacy and dignity was respected and people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.
People were not properly safeguarded from abuse as care workers were not clear on the procedures to follow if they had any concerns. The provider's did not have a safeguarding policy which contained the right procedure for care workers to follow when allegations of abuse were made.
Care workers had not received up to date training and had not received regular supervision or appraisals. There was no robust system in place to ensure checks or audits were carried out to identify, monitor and manage risks to people.
We spoke to people using the service and a family member of one person who receive a lot of support from the service. We where told that the service is 'excellent'.
We saw evidence that staff is trained in all mandatory areas of care. Staffs receive training in specific subjects enabling them to support individuals with their needs.
We spoke to both office based and care staff all of who felt very supported in their roles, telling us 'I have felt supported since day one'.
We saw the service ensures that care and support makes sure that each individuals care needs are meet with detailed care plans that will detail specific daily care and support needs.