Supreme Care Services Limited

We assessed 4 quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for the key question remains good.

We found that the service was delivering safe care. This was a result of thorough and personalised risk assessments with evidence of positive risk taking. Staff confidence and competence meant that concerns were raised with the appropriate people promptly and recorded accurately. Changes were made to care delivery where needed in order for risks to be mitigated and enhance peoples quality of care. People were involved in how the risks associated with their care were managed and they told us they felt care was delivered safely.

We assessed 2 quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for the key question remains good.

We found that people were involved in their care and their consent to receive care was sought by staff and the management team. Where people could not consent to care, the appropriate legislative processes had been followed. People had their needs assessed thoroughly before care commenced and were involved in how their care would be delivered. People told us care was consistent and they were asked for their consent before care began or changes were made to their care.

We assessed 3 quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for the key question remains good.

We found that the staffing team were caring and compassionate. The staff enjoyed their job and supporting people to reach their maximum potential. Records kept about people were sensitively written and dignified. Staff put peoples needs first, even if this meant the care visit was extended to do so, with the office team managing the impact on following care visits. People told us their independence was promoted and staff communicated with them well. The well-being of the staff team was one of the priorities of management. Staff told us they felt cared about and well supported.

We assessed 3 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for the key question remains good.

The service delivered person-centred care which was supported by developing relationships with staff. Care had been adapted to suit personal needs with the aim of achieving positive results. The service identified peoples protected characteristics and ensured care was delivered to people accounting for those and peoples differences. Where care could not be delivered consistently, the service had made efforts to manage the impact and communicate with people to keep them informed.

We assessed all 7 quality statements in the well led key question and found areas of good practice. Our rating for the key question has changed from requires improvement, to good.

The management team had seen a long period of consistency and sustainability. We found that processes meant the management had a clear picture of the performance of the service. We saw evidence of action taken in response to lessons learnt from quality assurance checks. The governance team were seen to be planning further improvements to recording and monitoring care electronically. Staff, people and relatives reported to have confidence in the management team. External professionals gave positive feedback about the leadership of the service and working together to achieve good outcomes for people.