Premier Homecare provides personal care to people who live in their own homes. There were 187 people using the service when we visited. The inspection took place on 24, 25 and 26 August 2016. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of this inspection. This is because the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff and we needed to be sure that they would be available.

Before the inspection we looked at all of the information that we held about the service. This included information from notifications received by us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.

There was a registered manager in post. 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. However, the registered manager was not available. There was a manager providing ongoing management of the service who was available on the day of inspection.

Staff received training to protect people from harm and they were knowledgeable about reporting any harm. There were a sufficient number of staff and recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. Risk assessments were in place and actions were taken to reduce identified risks.

The provider had procedures in place in relation to the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff we spoke with confirmed they had received training regarding MCA. The manager and the staff were knowledgeable about these. They were aware of the circumstances they needed to be aware of if people’s mental capacity to make certain decisions about their care changed.

Staff were supported and received ongoing training to do their job. The staff were in contact with a range of health care professionals to ensure that care and support was well coordinated. Health professionals we spoke with were complimentary and positive about the service. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that care and support could be safely provided.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their care and support was provided in a caring and a patient way.

A complaints procedure was in place. Complaints had been responded to, to the satisfaction of the complainant and in line with the provider’s procedure. People felt able to raise concerns with the staff at any time.

The provider had quality assurance processes and procedures in place to monitor the quality and safety of people’s care. People and their relatives were able to make suggestions in relation to the support and care provided.

We spoke with people using the service and their relatives who told us that staff consulted them and respected and acted on the decisions they had made about the care and support they agreed to.

We found that the plans of care held in the office and people’s homes contained up to date information. We saw that they contained the information staff members needed to ensure that the health and safety of people was promoted.

People using the service told us that they had received the care and support they needed and that staff were excellent.

We saw that the people’s individual medication was available and monitored and found that the provider was taking action to ensure it was administered safely and recorded accurately.

People using the service told us that they received a reliable service and that staff members were kind and respectful towards them.

The records held ensure that people are protected against the risks associated with unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

We spoke with people who used the service and their relatives who told us that staff consulted them and respected and acted on the decisions they made about the care and support they agreed to.

The plans of care contained the information staff members needed to ensure that the health and safety of people was promoted.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that people received the care and support they needed and that staff were very kind.

The provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse and staff we spoke with showed us that they knew how to ensure that people were safe.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

Complaints were dealt with appropriately and people were able to access and use the complaints system in a format that met their needs.

On the day of our visit we spoke with two people and one carer who use the service on a daily basis. They told us how kind and courteous the staff team were. One person told us “Some are better than others but they are all respectful at all times.”

We were told how involved people were with their care package and how they were included in all decisions that were made about their care requirements.

We heard how the staff team knew what was required when they arrive and that the person was fully informed of who was coming to their home and on what day throughout the week. Any changes to that staffing schedule would be phoned through to them.

They told us the staff team fully understand how to use any special equipment within their home and that they were clear about the need for assessments on any risks and what was done to minimize those risks.

We were told that the care staff that come in to help them were fully competent. They told us about the checks by senior staff, who will also visit their homes on a regular basis, to ensure staff are doing the job correctly.