Archived: Superior Homecare Services Limited

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. The provider had improved recruitment systems at the service to make sure all staff had appropriate checks before starting work at the service. Staff received appropriate training to make sure they met people's individual needs in a safe way. One person said 'The staff training was excellent, I have the same carer's at the moment and they are competent to do all aspects of care'.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People told us they were happy with the care received and that this met their individual needs. The provider had made improvements to their arrangements for care planning and the assessment of people's needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People told us that staff and the registered manager were of a caring nature. One person said 'They are very caring people and staff speak to me in a respectful way'. Another person said 'I wouldn't tolerate poor care and I am happy with the care given and have a good relationship with the carers'.

Is the service responsive?

People told us that staff were responsive to a range of their individual needs. The provider had undertaken a satisfaction survey in order to find out whether people were happy with the care provided by the service and had taken appropriate action to make improvements to the service where required. One person told us that the manager had checked they were happy and that the staff were well trained.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service which was to provide good quality care and that there were quality assurance processes in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times. We saw that the registered manager had used a system of audits to continuously monitor the quality of service received. Staff and people told us that the registered manager was a caring person and expected high standards of care to be maintained at all times.

We spoke with one person and a relative of another person who also used the service. They told us that they were pleased with the care that the service provided. One person told us that the registered manager listened to their care needs and provided 'flexible' care that suited their requirements. They also told us that the registered manager had a 'hands on' approach to management and observed the work that the care staff did to make sure that they received care to a high standard.

We found that people were involved with the planning of their care and that they had received an assessment of their needs before they started to use the service. We found that staff were knowledgeable about how to look after people they cared for. They also knew how to safeguard them from the risk of abuse. However, we found that there were some concerns regarding the care and welfare of people, recruitment of staff and the arrangements for staff training and supervision. We also found that that there were no formal systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.