Background to this inspection
Updated
26 April 2016
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 undertaken to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This was an announced inspection that took place on the 9 and 10 March 2016 at the agency office. We also contacted people who used the service and their relatives on the 15 March 2015, to seek their views about the service they received. The inspection team comprised of one adult social care inspector.
Prior to our inspection, we considered information we held about the service, such as notifications and enquiries. We did not request a Provider Information Return (PIR), prior to this inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
As part of the inspection, we also contacted the Local Authority Commissioners and Healthwatch Rochdale to seek their views about the service.
During the inspection, we spent time speaking with five people who used the service, the relatives of two people, four care staff, a care co-ordinator, the quality assurance manager as well as the registered manager and a director. We checked the care records for five people, which included care plans, risk assessments and medication administration records. We look at five staff personnel files, training records as well as information about the management and conduct of the service.
Updated
26 April 2016
Premier Care Rochdale provides help and support to people with varying needs enabling them to remain in their own homes and be as independent as possible. The agency offers a variety of services including assistance with personal care, domestic tasks, meal preparation and shopping. The agency office is situated in Rochdale, close to the town centre. At the time of our inspection, the agency was supporting 96 people living across Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton.
This was an announced inspection on the 9 and 10 March 2016. We gave the agency 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that the manager would be in. We also contacted people who used the service and their relatives on the 15 March 2015, to seek their views about the service received.
We last inspected Premier Care Rochdale in September 2014 at which time it was compliant with all the regulations we assessed.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection, there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.
We found three breaches in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We found potential risks to people had not been adequately assessed and planned for so that people were protected from potential harm or injury.
On review of people’s records we found that information gathered in the summary plan did not reflect people’s needs and wishes and were not always completed in full and some records were not signed or dated.
All the people we spoke with said they would speak with office staff if they had any complaints or concerns. However, effective systems of recording people’s complaints and concerns were not in place to show that people were listened to and where necessary action had been taken.
People told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff had completed training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew the action they should take if they had any concerns. Suitable arrangements were in place where the agency had access to people’s house keys and finances. These systems helped protect people who used the service.
Systems were in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines. The agency was to introduce a better way of monitoring medication administration so that any shortfalls identified could be quickly acted upon.
Sufficient numbers of staff were available to provide flexibility of support. People spoke positively about the staff and said they were generally on time, although recognised there were occasions when staff may run late.
Recruitment checks were completed before staff commenced work. However, records did not address all areas of the agency’s policies and procedure to ensure all detailed information about the suitability of candidates was gathered.
People were involved in discussions regarding their support and signed their agreement on their care records. Staff received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were aware of the importance of seeking people’s permission before carrying out tasks.
Staff received induction, supervision and a programme of training to help ensure they were able to deliver effective care. Staff spoken with confirmed they received regularly training and were equipped to support the needs of people they visited.
Suitable arrangements were in place to help ensure people’s health and nutritional needs were met.
People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care received and that staff supported them in a dignified and respectful manner. Staff spoken with demonstrated a clear understanding and gave examples of how people’s privacy and dignity was promoted and maintained. Consideration was also given to people cultural and religious needs.
A number of quality assurance systems were in place. Both staff and people who used the service were encouraged to comment on the service provided and to identify where any improvements could be made.