Platinum Care Cheshire Ltd

Updated 26 June 2018

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 planned 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.

Prior to the inspection we contacted the local authority commissioning team to seek their views about the service. They raised no concerns about the care and support people received and considered their last visit in November 2017 to be positive. We also considered information we held about the service, such as notification of events and incidents which occurred at the service which the registered provider is required by law to send to CQC. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice before our site visit and advised of our plans to carry out a comprehensive inspection of the service. This is because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office to assist with the inspection.

As part of the inspection, we visited the office and met with the manager for the organisation, the office assistance and a senior carer. We spoke with 10 people who used the service and seven relatives on the telephone. We spoke to six members of care staff. We also looked at eight care plans for people who used the service, five staff personnel files, MAR records for five people, staff training and development records as well as information about the management and quality assurance systems at the service.

Updated 26 June 2018

This inspection of Platinum Care took place on 31 May 2018. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our plans to complete an inspection. This was because the service provided a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office to assist with our inspection.

Platinum Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community in Cheshire. It provides a service to older adults and those with a physical disability or sensory impairment. Not everyone using Platinum 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.

Platinum Care registered with the CQC on the 30 March 2016 and had previously operated from a different location before moving to its current location in July 2016. This was the first inspection of Platinum Care. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing personal care to 76 people living in their own homes in the community.

There was a manager in post at the service who was appointed in April 2018 but was not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

All of the people we spoke with told us the support they received from staff enabled them to feel safe and secure whilst living independently. Risk management plans had been completed in areas such as moving and handling, medication and the environment to help protect people from the risk of harm and guide staff on how to mitigate identified risks.

Systems were in place to support people with their prescribed medicines. People received their medication from staff who had received the appropriate training and this was documented accurately. Medication audits and observations were completed regularly to ensure staff were competent in this process.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that staff appointed were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to recognise and report abuse to local partner agencies.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us that staff always asked for their consent before delivering any care and support. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the need to ensure that people were involved in making decisions about their care. The manager provided evidence of their plans to further develop the documentation in respect of this.

People using the service were supported by staff and external health care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff maintained effective communication and adopted a multi-disciplinary approach to meeting people’s needs. This included regular liaison with professionals such as social workers and occupational therapists.

Staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to provide care in an effective way and had a good understanding of the individual needs of the people using the service. Staff told us they felt well supported in their role and the training matrix showed they received regular training, supervisions and observations.

People told us that staff were ‘kind’, ‘considerate’ and ‘caring’ and spoke about the positive rapport they had developed with them. Comments included, “I would recommend them one million percent, they are absolutely excellent” and “I think they do a wonderful job, the carers that come to me are smashing.” People confirmed that staff treated them with respect and preserved their dignity when providing personal care.

Care plans contained detail in respect of people's routines and preferences to enable staff to gain a good understanding of the person they were supporting and provide person-centred care.

People had access to a complaints procedure and knew how to make a complaint. However, people told us they had no cause to complain and if they did have an issue, they resolved this informally. Comments included, “If we have a problem, we just call the office and it's sorted.”

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. This included audits in areas such as medication, care plans and recruitment, in addition to regular spot checks and staff observations to assess staff performance.

People who used the service were able to provide feedback about the quality of the care being delivered. Quality assurance surveys were issued to both people and staff to improve and develop the service.

The manager had notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of events and incidents that occurred at the service in accordance with our statutory requirements. This meant that CQC were able to monitor risks and information regarding the service.