Prolife Healthcare Services

Updated 23 May 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type:

Prolife is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Prolife provides a service to older adults in the Stockport and Trafford areas.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available.

Inspection site visit activity started on 24 April 2019 and ended on 26 April 2019. We visited the office location on 24 April 2019 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

What we did:

We reviewed information we held about the service. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as accidents or abuse. We reviewed the information the provider had sent us in their provider information return (PIR). The PIR gives some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We contacted local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams. No concerns were raised about the service provided by Prolife.

During the inspection we visited three people, with their permission, and spoke with them and their relative and friend about the support they received from Prolife. We telephoned a further three people and one relative about their experience of the support provided by Prolife. We also telephoned five members of care staff and spoke with the care co-ordinator and the registered manager.

We looked at a range of records, including four care plans and three medicines records. We also reviewed four staff recruitment files, training and quality assurance and other records in relation to the management of the service.

Updated 23 May 2019

About the service:

Prolife Healthcare Services (known as Prolife) is a domiciliary care agency providing support for people living in their own homes and flats. Prolife provides services in Stockport and Trafford. At the time of the inspection Prolife were supporting 22 people.

People’s experience of using this service:

People and their relatives were positive about the care staff and the support they provided. They said that the staff knew their needs and the support they required. There had also been positive feedback from local authority social workers about the support provided by Prolife.

Where people required support with administering their medicines they received them as prescribed. Staff signed a medicines administration record (MAR) for all tablets. Where creams were applied this was noted in the daily records. Thickeners added to drinks to reduce the risk of choking were not always recorded in the daily logs. The registered manager said they would introduce staff signing a MAR for all creams and thickeners administered by care staff.

The support people needed was assessed and regularly reviewed with people and their relatives. Risks were identified and guidance provided for staff to minimise the known risks. The support to be provided at each visit was clearly documented in the care plans.

People said there had not been any missed visits and staff completed all tasks required. Staff also checked if people wanted any other things to be done during the visit. Some staff would collect some shopping or go to the post office on people’s behalf.

Staff had the training and support to carry out their roles. Staff said that they could contact the care co-ordinator or registered manager at any time and felt well supported. Staff had regular contact with the care co-ordinator and registered manager through phone calls, spot check visits and supervisions. Staff were safely recruited, with all pre-employment checks completed prior to the staff member starting work.

Matrices were used to track when care plan reviews were due and staff training needed to be refreshed. Care plans and staff training records were being uploaded to a computer based system which would highlight when reviews were due.

MARs and daily records were reviewed each month; however, the action taken if an issue had been identified was not always recorded. Incidents were recorded and reviewed by the registered manager. Any action taken was noted. A summary sheet for each person was used to identify if there were any patterns to the incidents.

A formal complaints procedure was in place, but few complaints had been received. People and relatives told us they would speak to the care staff directly or phone the care co-ordinator or registered manager directly if they had a concern. These were then addressed by the service.

Rating at last inspection: Good; report published 1 November 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk