Pro Healthcare Services

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to lack of person centred care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not always receive person centred care because their care was not provided at the agreed times or scheduled around people’s needs and preferences. Care plans were not detailed or centred around people’s needs and preferences.

People and relatives shared concerns about the lack of person-centred care and people’s preferences not being met, and this impacted on their wellbeing. Concerns included people not being supported with care at regular times, staff supporting not being the gender of their preference and staff not supporting people safely with their food preferences.

The provider told us they would review care plans and risk assessments to ensure these were consistent and up to date.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We found examples where the service was working well with other professionals such as district nurses. However, we also found examples where there was a lack of understanding from the management team of how to provide safe and coordinated care, by being clear on how to work with other professionals and what records needed to be in place to sustain this working relationship to ensure people received safe care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care records for people contained limited information on their equality and diversity needs. Some people using the service lived with dementia or cognitive difficulties, however communication plans were limited and there was no information on how to involve people in expressing their needs and wishes.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was a complaints policy in place. We found examples of complaints being raised about late and short visits; however, we found limited evidence these had being used to improve the management of the service and prevent reoccurrence.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise a complaint; however, we received mixed feedback about people and relatives feeling listened and involved when they had raised concerns. Comments included, “I cannot complain about the care being provided” and “The office does not ring back or pick up calls. I left two complaints and still did not get a call back.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were systems in place to monitor visits, however, we identified several late calls and issues with rota planning, including a lack of allocated travel time. This increased the risk that people did not always receive care at the planned time.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Discussions with staff, the registered manager and nominated individual as well as our review of information did not identify that people were being discriminated against or denied access to the care and support they required. However, care plans did not always contain sufficient detail regarding individuals’ protected characteristics and associated needs, which could increase the risk of care not being delivered consistently or in a way that fully meets people’s requirements.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans had limited information about people’s future wishes and there was limited evidence of staff having end-of-life discussions with people. No one using the service was in receipt of palliative care at the time of our assessment.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to providing end of life care. Some staff had completed training in this area.