Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Privilege Care Limited, 1 Brunel Way, Slough.

Privilege Care Limited in 1 Brunel Way, Slough is a Homecare agencies specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia, personal care, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The last inspection date here was 10th December 2019

Privilege Care Limited is managed by Privilege Care Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Privilege Care Limited
      The Spaces Slough Porter Building
      1 Brunel Way
      Slough
      SL1 1FQ
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01753548110
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Inadequate
Effective: Inadequate
Caring: Requires Improvement
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Inadequate
Overall: Inadequate

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-12-10
    Last Published 2019-03-20

Local Authority:

    Slough

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

28th January 2019 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

About the service:

This is the single location within the provider’s current registration. The office is in a residential area of Slough. At the time of our inspection, 24 people used the service and there were 11 staff. For more details, please see the full report which is on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

People’s experience of using this service:

People and relatives described the support received as caring, however stated there were numerous areas that the service needed to improve. Insufficient action was taken by the provider since our last inspection. People’s risks were assessed however sufficient information was not in place which demonstrated how risks were reduced. There was consistent feedback that staff were late, there were not enough staff or that the same staff members were not deployed to provide people’s care. Recruitment processes remained unsatisfactory. Staff did not appropriately complete induction, training and performance appraisals. Spot checks by the registered manager were completed. The documentation and management of complaints was insufficient. Systems and processes to monitor the quality of the service were still not in place. Formal feedback was not sought, although forms were available to enable this. There was inadequate management oversight of the service which led to repeated and new breaches of the regulations.

Rating at last inspection:

At our last inspection the service was rated “requires improvement ”. Our last report was published on 27 March 2018.

Why we inspected:

This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received. We inspect services previously rated “requires improvement” within 12 months after the last published inspection report.

Enforcement:

There were eight breaches of the regulations at this inspection.

The overall rating for this service is inadequate and the service is therefore in 'special measures'.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider's registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe. If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe and a rating of inadequate remains for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration if they do not improve.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions, it will no longer be in special measures.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found in inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

19th January 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Privilege Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses. It provides a service to people living with dementia; older adults; younger adults; people with physical disabilities and sensory impairment. The service was providing a regulated activity to 17 adults who were using the service at the time of our visit.

The service has a registered manager. 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 under Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the caring nature of staff. A person commented, “They (staff) know I have problems with my shoulders and provide care in a gentle way. They always say what they’re going to do and ask me if I am okay.”

People and their relatives said staff treated them with respect and dignity. Personal information was kept securely and password protected in the office.

People and their relatives felt safe when receiving care and support from staff. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and had attended the relevant training. However; staff did not have access to Local Authorities specific procedures for reporting and managing safeguarding matters. We have made a recommendation for the service to seek current guidance and best practice to make sure national and local safeguarding arrangements are reflected in their safeguarding policy and procedures.

Staff were aware of people’s risks but there were no measures to reduce or remove the risks within a timescale that reflected the level of risks and impact on people. Safe recruitment practices were not always in place. We have made a recommendation for the service to seek current guidance in relation to staffing provision in the event of unforeseen circumstances.

Medicines were administered safely. However; the service had not made sure met staff met the acceptable levels of competence to support people with medicines. We have made a recommendation for the service to seek current guidance and best practice on conducting medicine competency assessments. People were kept safe from infection.

People felt they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. However; there were no records to demonstrate staff had supported them in the least restrictive way possible. We have made a recommendation for the service to seek current guidance and best practice on maintaining documents in line with the MCA requirements and the registered manager to attend a MCA course specific to their job role.

People and their relatives felt the care delivered was responsive and met their specific needs. We found assessment of peoples’ needs were not consistently undertaken by the service. We have a made a recommendation for the service to seek current guidance and best practice on how to carry out assessment of peoples’ needs. Staff were not appropriately inducted; trained and supervised. Staff worked within the principles of the Equality Act 2010 to make sure their work practice did not discriminate against people. People and their relatives felt their nutritional and health needs were met.

The registered manager was not aware of their legal duty under the Accessible Information Standard, to make sure people with a disability or sensory loss can access and understand information they are given. We have a made a recommendation for the service to seek current guidance and best practice in order to be compliant with the Accessible Information Standard. This meant the service did not implement the systems they had in place when complaints were received.

People and their re

 

 

Latest Additions: