We carried out a review of the data available to us about Calverton Supreme Home Care 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 Calverton Supreme Home Care, you can give feedback on this service.
A registered manager was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using Calverton Supreme Home Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
Calverton Supreme Home Care supports people with a variety of needs to live independently in the community. At the time of our inspection 66 people were receiving personal care as part of their care package.
At the previous inspection in July 2016 we identified some improvements were required in two key areas we inspected; ‘Responsive’ and ‘Well-led’. This resulted in the service having an overall rating of ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found the registered provider had made the required improvements.
People received safe care because the registered provider had processes in place to reduce the risk of people experiencing avoidable harm. Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and had up to date information, to support them to manage any known risks. Staff were aware of the action required to respond to any new risks. The majority of people who used the service reported they received visits by staff at the agreed time and staff stayed for the duration of the call. Equally, people told us they were on the whole informed if staff were running late.
The registered provider had safe staff recruitment processes in place and these were used effectively to ensure as far as possible, staff recruited were appropriate to provide care and support. There were sufficient staff employed and deployed appropriately to meet people's needs. Where people required support with their prescribed medicines there were safe medicine management processes in place. Staff had received training in how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Any accidents and incidents were recorded, reported and investigated and action was taken to reduce further reoccurrence.
Staff received a planned and structured induction on commencement of their employment and ongoing training and opportunities to discuss their work and development needs.
People were treated equally and were not discriminated against as a result of their health or social care needs. People’s health related needs had been assessed and were monitored; staff took appropriate and supportive action if people were unwell.
The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were understood by staff. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the less restrictive way possible.
People who used the service were supported by staff that treated them with care and compassion, people’s privacy and dignity were maintained and respected. The registered provider had processes in place to regularly discuss and review’s people’s care package with them.
People's diverse needs were respected. People were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates.
People who used the service and their relative or representative where appropriate, were involved in the pre-assessment and development of their care package and ongoing reviews. People who used the service received a weekly staff rota to inform them what staff were scheduled to visit. In the main the management team tried to ensure people received consistent staff but acknowledged some people preferred to have different staff to support them.
People’s individual needs, routines and how they wished to be supported had been assessed and planned for. Staff had clear information and instruction of how to meet people’s needs to support them to provide a person centred approach to the service they provided.
People had a service user guide that provided information of what they could expect from the service. This included information of how to make a complaint.
People received opportunities to share their experience of the service they received from the registered provider. Systems and processes were in place that checked on quality and safety issues and these were managed well. Staff were clear about the registered provider’s aims and values and spoke positively about their work and leadership of the service. People who used the service on the whole were happy and satisfied with the service they received.
The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.
People were supported by staff who understood the risks people could face and knew how to make people feel safe. People were encouraged to be independent and risks were mitigated in the least restrictive way possible.
People were usually supported by a regular staff member or group of staff who they knew. People who required support to take their medicines received assistance to do so when this was needed.
People were provided with the care and support they required by staff who were trained and supported to do so. People’s human right to make decisions for themselves was respected and they provided consent to their care when needed.
People were supported to consume a sufficient amount of food and fluids that promoted their wellbeing. People received support from staff who understood their health needs.
People were treated with respect by staff who demonstrated kindness and understanding. People were involved in determining their care and support. They were shown respect and treated with dignity in the way they wished to be.
People could not rely on their plan of care containing all the required information to ensure their care and support was delivered as needed. People felt able to express any issues of concerns and these were responded to.
People who used the service and staff were able to express their views about the service which were considered and when appropriate acted upon. Auditing systems did not provide information to help improve the service people received.
Consent had been given by people to their care and support which we found met their needs in a responsive and caring way. People told us they were asked for their views and wishes about the care and support they wanted.
People received the support they needed to take their medication safely. A care worker said, "We cover medication during induction training, if I didn't feel confident of helping people with their medication I would ask for more training.'
The care workers we spoke with felt they were supported by the agency to fulfil their roles and had received sufficient training. A person who used the service said of the care workers, 'You can't teach anyone to care. They are wonderful ' angels.'
We saw the provider had internal quality, monitoring and audit systems in place. We looked at feedback from the annual survey which concluded that 95% of people who used the agency and responded to the questionnaire found the overall service provided either excellent or good.
There were 134 people using the service at the time of this inspection. We spoke with six of these directly and with the relatives of another two. We also spoke with six care staff; various office staff; the registered manager; and the director of the company.
People who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us 'Staff are very caring.' Another said 'I am very pleased with the person that comes to me and with the support I get.' People told us they felt safe and knew how to raise any concerns they might have. All said that staff treated them with dignity and respect.
Staff we spoke with told us the provider was good in terms of ensuring that training was up-to-date and they enjoyed working there. One staff member told us, 'I really enjoy the work I do and feel confident that I do a good job.'
People described the care provided to them as being provided in a way that encouraged their privacy, dignity and lifestyle choices. Staff remembered to close their curtains and doors during intimate care procedures. One person told us,
'I felt that when I received care from the staff at this agency all my needs were respected.'
One person using the service said, 'I feel that the care workers are more like friends, I know all of them.'
Another person told us, 'My care workers have been late the odd times, although the care they provided was good.'
One person using the service said, 'I am sent my rota about a week ahead of the care to be received; therefore I know who will care for me each week. There have been some occasions when I have not been told that someone else will be coming. They have just turned up at the door, but usually I would not be sent a stranger who I have not met before.'
People who used services confirmed that they received a reliable service from staff that were respectful, and well trained. They told us that the services were delivered in a responsible and professional manner.