Prominence Care Group

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Overall, the provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respected their privacy and dignity.

Care records were written in a respectful way and referred to staff supporting people with kindness and noted the need to respect choices where possible. Feedback indicated people were supported by staff who were kind and caring in their approach and did their best to support them effectively.

We received feedback suggesting staff undertook some practices which did not always respect people’s privacy, such as carrying out rooms checks. The registered manager told us requirements such as not having alcohol on the premises were due to people’s tenancy agreements with the housing provider. They had met with the local authority about some concerns and confirmed their staff would not take part in any room checks or postal checks. They told us they supported people to prepare for any housing inspections as part of their tenancy agreements.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Support plans referred to people’s preferences and wishes, containing information about who and what was important to the person. The registered manager told us they took account of people’s cultural and religious needs.

However, information was repetitive within one person’s support plan and did not provide enough personalised detail about how staff should support with all aspects of their care. For example, initial information suggested one person liked to be supported by male staff for showering, however, this was not reflected within their support plan despite concerns they were reluctant to accept support with their personal care from female staff.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Support plans contained some information to guide staff about how to support people with independence, with a section including information about people’s goals and aspirations. However, we found one person was not empowered to have full choice and control of their lives. Their support plan recorded they should be included in decisions and had the right to make choices. Staff told us they encouraged them to make their own choices. However, the processes implemented by the provider did not always support this. Feedback indicated that decisions had been made by staff which did not support the person to have choice and control, which was not in line with their consent or with the MCA.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Overall, staffing was consistent and staff told us they were familiar with the people they supported. They told us they understood aspects of a person’s communication needs and were able to respond to them promptly. However, we found staff had not been provided with sufficient training and guidance to support them to always respond with suitable strategies and techniques to distress or behaviours of concern.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff were positive about the support they received from managers. Comments included, “They are friendly and they understand” and “If we have difficulties, we can reach out to management and speak to them.” Staff told us they were generally kept up to date with any changes and staff meetings were held.

Feedback indicated managers were flexible and made adjustments to support staff where required. Staff had access to a confidential employee assistance programme.