We carried out a review of the data available to us about Surecare (Slough) 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 (Slough), you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿People felt safe while supported by the staff team who made them feel reassured and relatives agreed with this.
¿Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents or concerns. The registered manager had the knowledge to identify safeguarding concerns and acted on these appropriately.
¿The service assessed risks to the health and wellbeing of people who use the service and staff. Where risks were identified action was taken to reduce the risk where possible.
¿People received care that was designed to meet their individual needs and preferences. 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.
¿Recruitment processes were in place to make sure, as far as possible, people were protected from staff being employed who were not suitable.
¿Medicines were handled safely by staff who had been assessed as competent to do so.
¿The staff monitored people's health and wellbeing and took appropriate action when required to address concerns.
¿The registered manager and senior staff had planned and booked training when necessary to ensure all staff had the appropriate knowledge and skills to support people. Staff had ongoing support, supervision and appraisals. They felt supported by the registered manager and senior staff.
¿People were treated with respect, and their privacy and dignity were promoted. People felt the staff supported them in the way they wanted. Staff were responsive to the needs of the people and enabled them to improve and maintain their independence with personal care.
¿Staff felt the registered manager and senior staff were approachable and considerate. They had good communication, worked well together and supported each other. The registered manager praised the staff team for their hard work and appreciated their contribution to ensure people received the best care and support.
¿People's right to confidentiality was protected and their diversity needs were identified and incorporated into their support plans where applicable.
¿The registered manager reviewed, assessed and monitored the quality of service provided. They encouraged feedback from people and families, which they used to make improvements to the service. The provider was taking steps proactively to ensure people were protected against the risks of receiving unsafe and inappropriate care and treatment.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated Good in the domains of safe, effective, caring and responsive. The service was rated Requires Improvement in the domain of well-led. Overall the service was rated Good (Report was published 27 October 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor all information we receive about this service. This informs our ongoing assessment of their risk profile and ensures we are able to schedule the next inspection accordingly.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The registered manager was in post since January 2011. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
This is the first inspection of the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
Quality assurance systems to assess monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service it provided were not always effective. This was because records relating to staff supervisions, appraisals and reviews of care were not accurate and failed to capture changes in people’s care needs.
People, their relatives and staff generally felt the service was well led and shared areas where further improvements could be made. Unannounced spot checks were undertaken to ensure staff’s performance was to an acceptable standard. People confirmed the service sought their views about the care received and felt confident the feedback given would be listened to.
People said staff were friendly and respectful, ensured they were comfortable and had all they needed when describing the caring nature of staff. During our home visits and in our conversations with staff we found, people were cared for by staff who had a good understanding of their care needs. People were given the information and explanations when they need them in a way that they could understand.
We made a recommendation in relation to the service’s end of life care and end of life care planning.
People said they were supported by staff who had the skills and the knowledge to give them the care and support they needed. Staff felt supported and appropriately trained to carry out their job roles. People’s nutritional needs were met and staff told us how they worked with other health professionals to ensure people maintained good health.
People said they felt safe from harm when they received care and support from staff. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns or potential abuse. We found risks of abuse to people were minimised because the service had safe recruitment procedures were in place.
People received care that was specific to their individual needs. People and their relatives said they were involved in the initial assessment before the care package started. Care records captured people’s what was important to people; their preferences; hobbies and interests and spiritual needs. People knew how to make a complaint and those who had told us their complaints were responded to appropriately.
Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Risk assessments had been completed with guidelines for staff to follow
Staff were provided with appropriate training to give them the knowledge and skills to undertake their roles competently. Staff were provided with an annual appraisal and regular supervision. This ensured they were well supported and there was an open door policy, where they could visit the office and see the manager at any time if they had any concerns.
There was a complaints procedure in place to ensure people could raise any concerns they had. People told us they knew who to speak to if they had concerns, although one carer we spoke with told us there were some people who don't seem to understand the process and some who are frightened in doing so. Comments from those we spoke with included ''I have their number but I have no concerns, they're very good.'' Another person told us they had recently been sent a copy of the complaints procedure so knew who to contact.
The service had a system in place to ensure people were protected against the risk of abuse. Staff we spoke with understood their duty of care and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people from harm. People told us they felt safe with the staff who entered their homes to provide them with support and knew who to speak to if they had any concerns.
People described staff as '' very nice and respectful...they are very good and I would definitely recommend them to others.'' One person told us ''they know how to help me and how I like them to help.'' A family member told us they were happy with the service and couldn't fault the carers.
People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs but there was inconsistency in assessing risks associated with the care provided and providing guidelines for staff to follow.
People generally received their care from regular carers, but there was some inconsistency during the weekends, which did not allow for continuity of care.