# Reign Supreme Care Services Ltd

Reign Supreme Care Services Ltd is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Leicester.

## CQC Ratings

| Key question | Rating |
| --- | --- |
| Overall | Good |
| Safe | Good |
| Effective | Good |
| Caring | Good |
| Responsive | Good |
| Well-led | Good |

Rating published: 06/12/2023

## Practical info

- Postcode: LE4 5HH
- Registered manager: Chikwawawa, Lucia
- Local authority: Leicester
- Region: East Midlands
- City: Leicester
- Last CQC check: 06/Dec/2023 - 00:00

## Inspection findings

### caring

- Finding
  - Staff were caring, respected dignity, privacy, independence and cultural needs of people.
  - Published: 2021-10-30

### effective

- Finding
  - Staff demonstrated awareness of MCA and obtained consent before providing care.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Staff had largely received training though training on some relevant issues had not yet been provided.
  - Published: 2021-10-30

### Other

- Finding
  - Evidence: Statutory notifications submitted to CQC as required; duty of candour responsibilities understood.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Good communication with families and health professionals, including GP information sharing.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Registered manager open, transparent, and responsive; demonstrated learning from previous inspection findings.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Regular supervision and appraisal of staff; registered manager conducted spot checks on performance.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff received safeguarding, MCA, equality and diversity training with regular refreshers.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Person-centred care with regular care plan reviews involving people and relatives.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Robust infection prevention and control procedures with adequate PPE always available to staff.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Medicines managed safely with trained staff, competency checks, MARs completion, and monthly medicines audits.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Care calls consistently provided at arranged times with proactive communication when timings were expected to change.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Registered manager had full oversight with monthly audits, quality assurance, and safe staff recruitment practices.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- **medication_management** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: Some additional information was needed to record why and what effect the medicine had. The registered manager amended the protocols during the inspection.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- **consent_capacity** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: some assessments did require more detail. The registered manager reviewed these assessments during the inspection to show fully how people's capacity had been determined.
  - Published: 2024-02-01
- Finding
  - Evidence: Infection control practices were followed including use of PPE and hand washing.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and communication within the team was good.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Registered manager was responsive to inspection findings and provided remedial evidence post-visit.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Service worked in partnership with other agencies and followed professional guidance.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff demonstrated understanding of Mental Capacity Act and sought consent before providing care.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Relative reported staff were kind, friendly, caring and respected dignity and cultural needs.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff recruitment checks including DBS were in place to protect people from unsuitable staff.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- **complaints_handling** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: The provider's complaints procedure...did not contain contact details about the complaints authority or details of the local government ombudsman.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- **staff_training** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: Staff had not received training in a number of people's specific long-term health conditions such as stroke and end-of-life care.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- **governance** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: There were no audits undertaken on important quality issues such staff training.
  - Published: 2021-10-30

### responsive

- Finding
  - Complaints procedure was incomplete, missing contact details for the complaints authority and ombudsman.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Care plans lacked personalised information about the person's history, likes, dislikes and aspirations.
  - Published: 2021-10-30

### safe

- Finding
  - Risk assessments were not comprehensively in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare.
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Safeguarding systems were not comprehensively in place to keep people safe.
  - Published: 2021-10-30

### well_led

- Finding
  - Quality assurance audits were incomplete, with no audits on important issues such as staff training.
  - Published: 2021-10-30

## Source

Data published by the [Care Quality Commission](https://www.cqc.org.uk/) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Canonical page: https://homecarecompass.co.uk/agency/1-2338193457

HomeCare Compass is an independent guide and is not affiliated with the CQC.