This was an announced inspection that took place on the 6 and 7 October 2016. The registered manager was not in the office during the inspection; we spoke with them by telephone on the 7 October. This was the first inspection after the service registered with the Care Quality Commission in April 2014. Prolife Healthcare Services is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes.
At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care support for 23 people.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. We also spoke with the nominated individual who was a director of the service. A nominated individual is a person employed as a director, manager or secretary of an organisation with responsibility for supervising the management of the regulated activity. The service had appointed a care co-ordinator in July 2016 to manage the rota, complete assessments and undertake quality spot checks on the service provided.
All the people we spoke with, and their relatives, said they felt safe supported by staff from Prolife Healthcare Services. Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew the correct action to take if they suspected any abuse had occurred. Staff said the care co-ordinator, registered manager and nominated individual would listen to any concerns raised.
Where Prolife Healthcare Services had responsibility to administer people’s medicines they were administered safely. Medication Administration Records (MAR) were correctly completed and checked by the registered manager; however these checks were not recorded.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). The local authority social workers assessed people’s needs and gained consent or completed best interest decisions for the support required before Prolife Healthcare Services were engaged to provide the support. People and their families, where appropriate, were involved in agreeing the support to be provided by the service.
Care plans and risk assessments were in place for each person who used the service. These gave guidance to staff on how to support people and mitigate the identified risks. The plans were reviewed every six months. A re-assessment was completed when people were discharged from hospital to record any changes in their needs.
A robust system of recruiting and training staff was in place. Staff completed mandatory training courses and undertook two shifts shadowing the care co-ordinator or registered manager before being placed on the rota. Training was refreshed on an annual basis.
Spot checks were completed by the care co-ordinator, registered manager or nominated individual every three months to observe staff practice. Supervisions were due to take place every six months; however we saw that this timescale was not always met. The care co-ordinator had started to complete supervisions with staff as well as the registered manager so these should be able to be held on a regular basis. Staff told us they felt well supported by the care co-ordinator and registered manager and they were always available by telephone if staff needed guidance or had a concern. This meant the staff had the skills, knowledge and support to provide effective care.
People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the staff at Prolife Healthcare Services. Staff had a clear understanding of people’s needs. Staff could explain how they delivered person centred care and respected people’s dignity and privacy. Staff supported people with their nutritional and health needs where applicable.
The care co-ordinator and registered manager checked all paperwork was in place and current when they completed the staff spot checks. Telephone monitoring calls were made to people who used the service or their relatives every two to three months.
There was a system in place to record, investigate and learn from complaints. Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed to reduce the likelihood of the incident reoccurring.