Premium Homecare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Improvements had been made to systems to identify and assess risks to people’s safety. New risk assessments had been introduced and completed. The risk assessments we reviewed were completed correctly and now provided staff with clear and up to date information about any risks to people’s safety and actions they should take to mitigate those risks. Daily notes showed staff provided people with support in relation to any risks to their safety. This included support with safe moving and handling, maintaining their skin integrity and risk of pressure wound development, and in relation to their continence needs. Staff confirmed they received detailed information about any risk’s to people’s safety and the management team updated them on any changes to people’s needs.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff confirmed they now had sufficient time to travel between appointments and enough time scheduled during their calls to support people. We saw this was reflected in call log data with an improvement in the punctuality of care calls. However, there continued to be some concerns with call scheduling. Some people told us there were still some concerns with punctuality. Comments from people and relatives included, “Only yesterday I had to ring up myself to see where my care worker was, this happens quite often,” and “I need 2 care workers at every visit and this is where the problem is. The care workers don’t ever come at the same time so they can’t get things done properly.” On the whole, the office staff rang people to inform them their care worker was running late. A relative told us, “We are happy with the care, timings can be an issue but I do get a call if the care workers are going to be more than half an hour late”

A training matrix was in place which enabled the management team to have oversight of staff’s compliance with the provider’s mandatory training requirements. We saw that staff had completed the provider’s mandatory training, and on the whole, were up to date with their refresher courses to ensure their knowledge and skills remained up to date with best practice guidance. Staff received regular supervision, appraisal and spot checks to ensure they were well supported in their role and received regular opportunities to review their work and performance.

No new care staff had been recruited since our last assessment, and therefore we were unable to review recruitment practices. A recruitment policy was in place.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure that medicines were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. A relative said, “The care workers all make sure she has her tablets which is a relief as mum doesn’t always remember to take them.”

People’s care records had been updated to clearly identify which medicines they were taking, what level of support they required with medicines management and who was to deliver this support. Where care workers supported people with their medicines, electronic medicine administration records were in place. We saw these were completed correctly and enabled the management team to have oversight of the process to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.