We carried out a review of the data available to us about SureCare Shropshire Limited 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 SureCare Shropshire Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
SureCare Shropshire Limited provides personal care and support to people in their own home. The agency provides care and support for older people, adults with disabilities and people who live with dementia. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection visit, SureCare Shropshire Limited provided services to 111 people.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were at the very heart of the service. They told us the registered manager and staff were exceptionally helpful and supportive and excellent carers. They said they were extremely pleased with the care they received, and staff were respectful, considerate and extremely thorough. Staff were committed to delivering outstanding and inclusive personalised care. They strongly focused on supporting people’s diverse needs and preferences. They were aware of people’s individual preferences and had the skills, knowledge and ability to meet and exceed these. People frequently told us staff gave them care and support that was much more and far above what they expected. This included staff staying and chatting after their shift finished, helping with tasks difficult for the person supported and doing errands in their own time.
People said staff were very proactive and planned support in partnership with them. They told us they were encouraged to discuss their care and staff listened and made any adjustments. Senior staff regularly contacted people and urged them to discuss how their support could be improved. They acted promptly where areas of improvement were identified. People were supported to attend events organised by the service or activities they chose. The management team arranged social events including coffee mornings, social outings and fund-raising events. Transport was available, so people were able to attend if they wished. These events provided people with the opportunity to socialise and make friends and to renew old friendships. People told us they had information on how to make a complaint. People felt complaints or concerns were listened to and acted on promptly. Staff provided care that supported people to have a pain free and peaceful end of life and were passionate about making each person feel safe and comfortable.
The managing director and registered manager worked extremely effectively together and provided excellent leadership. They used a variety of methods to check the quality of the service and develop good practice. They focused on ways to increase the well-being of people they supported and the staff team. They worked closely and extremely effectively with other organisations and groups and shared information and learning with other professionals. They had piloted innovative projects developing best practice standards into their care. They were clear about their expectations relating to how care and support should be provided and led by example. Staff were aware and committed to the high standards expected of them.
People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely, effectively trained and supported and reliable. Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse and people told us they felt safe with their carers and liked and trusted them. Senior staff had assessed risks and management strategies were in place. People said staff never missed visits and were rarely late. They told us staff managed their medicines safely and they received them at the times they needed them.
People said staff had the skills, knowledge and temperament needed to support them and were cheerful and competent. They told us staff supported them to eat and drink and helped them seek medical help if needed. We saw staff were prompt and in seeking advice or referrals when people were ill and supported people to attend healthcare appointments. They liaised effectively with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s health and well-being was maintained. The registered manager and staff team understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated good (published 11 August 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. We may inspect sooner if any issues or concerns are identified.
SureCare Shropshire Limited is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes who are over the age of 18 years old. There were 112 people using the service on the day of our inspection.
A registered manager was in post and was present during 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 kept safe in their own homes by staff who had been trained to recognise when they may be at risk of harm. Staff were confident in what they needed to do to report any concerns they may have about a person’s safety. People felt safe with the staff that supported them and were happy their property and personal possessions were kept secure. There were safe systems in place to manage people’s medicines and monitor risks associated with their care.
People were supported by staff who were familiar to them. Staff worked within the same localities to make sure people received a consistency to their care and support by having the same staff. Staff did not start working for the service until background checks had been completed to make sure they were suitable to support people in their own homes.
People had confidence in the skills and knowledge of the staff that supported them. Staff received training that was specific to people's needs and kept up to date with current best practice. Staff had the support of managers to make sure they could carry out their roles effectively and meet the needs of people they supported.
Staff asked for people’s consent before they supported them and gave them choices to enable them to make day-to-day decisions about their care. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in ensuring people’s rights would be protected if they needed support with making decisions.
People had built good working relationships with the staff that supported them. People were happy with the care they received and the kind and caring approach of staff. Staff promoted people’s independence to enable them to remain in their own homes and respected their privacy and dignity.
People received care and support that was discussed and agreed with them. Staff respected their wishes and preferences and supported them how they wanted to be supported. When people’s needs changed staff reviewed and updated their care plans with them to make sure it was responding to these changes.
People and relatives were encouraged to give their opinions on the care and support they received. People were confident to raise any concerns or complaints with care and office staff and felt these would be listened to.
The service had a positive culture and staff worked for the benefit of the people who used it. The provider monitored the quality of care people received and made resources available to drive continuous improvements within the service. Staff understood and were supported in their roles and felt involved in the development of the service.
People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect. They told us that they never experienced any discrimination. The provider had systems in place to respond to and investigate allegations of abuse.
We found that the new care records held in people's homes were clear and contained well completed care plans. We saw that the service user guide kept in the care plan folder provided up to date information for people about what they should expect from the service they received.
We saw that staff had good access to a wide variety of training relevant to their role. Staff told us they were supported to do additional training including National Vocational Qualification in Care. We saw that staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal.
The views of people who used the service was sought through an annual satisfaction survey. Lessons learnt from complaints and incidents were shared with staff via staff meetings and direct communication.
People were very satisfied with the care and support they received from Surecare. They were involved and consulted with the way that care and support was given and reviewed. People were supported to retain their independence as much as possible. Staff and the service were described as, "Very, very good", "Always courteous and friendly" and, "Very helpful".
People were very clear that their consent was sought by the service in relation to how care was provided.
Care plans contained clear guidance for staff on people's needs and how these should be met. This was done in a way that reflected people's individuality and preferences.
Systems were in place to make sure that checks were made when new staff started working at the service to make sure that they were suitable. Staff felt very well supported by the management team. Staff were described as, "Very kind", and "Wonderful".
The service supplied people with information about how to raise any concerns and complaints.
Appropriate equipment was provided and serviced by healthcare professionals. Staff were trained so that they could use it safely.
We did not review every outcome for this provider. We were proportionate in our approach and focused on outcome one, four, seven, 14 and 16.
We contacted five people who used the service, five staff and visited the manager at the agency.
There were many positive comments and overall people were pleased with the care and support they received. Many comments were made about staff being kind and caring, helpful and friendly. One person said 'They go over and above their duty'.
People who used the service said they received information before they agreed to the service. They said they had their needs assessed and were monitored closely by the staff involved with their care.
People said they were treated as individuals and any change to their care was communicated to the care workers speedily which ensured consistent quality care. People said the agency often asked them their views about the service and were keen to rectify any problems.