Prominence Care Group

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.This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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.

Support plans included information about what was important to the person, including their preferences for how they wanted to be supported. However, support plans did not fully consider all aspects of people’s individual needs. The provider had made decisions about aspects of one person’s care but had not always worked in partnership with them, their relatives or other professionals. Following our feedback the provider told us they were taking action to strengthen their practices in relation to person centred care, having engaged external input to focus on the quality of the service.

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.

Whilst people were generally supported by a consistent staff team, support plans and risk assessments were not always in place or sufficiently detailed, therefore we could not be assured people received consistent care. Systems for reviewing the care provided were not always effective to ensure the care provided was supportive of people’s choices.

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

The provider had an accessible information policy, they were developing ‘easy read’ policies. Support plans prompted staff to consider the support people needed around their communication needs and how to enable the person to contribute. However, for one person the information was limited, with no consideration given to other potential strategies or communication aids which may be beneficial. Staff told us they were aware of the person’s communication needs, however, feedback indicated staff did not always engage with the person effectively to enable meaningful communication.

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.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure. A relative had recently raised a formal complaint about aspects of the care provision. Whilst a meeting had been arranged and actions agreed to make some improvements; the provider had not followed their procedures fully as they had not provided a written account and outcome to the complaint.

The registered manager told us they gathered feedback from people through the completion of care reviews and from being in regular contact with them. Staff had reviewed a person’s support plan; however, they had not involved the person’s relative or advocate. The records indicated it was ‘not applicable’ for them to be asked to take part, which was incorrect.

The registered manager told us they were rolling out a new survey to help gather feedback to assess and further develop the service.

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

The registered manager was aware of the barriers people could face when accessing care and treatment. They shared an example where they had supported a person to access healthcare support in line with their specific needs, working with health colleagues to adjust usual practices. However, they had not ensured a person’s needs were fully assessed, considered and recorded in relation to their accessibility needs. For example, accessing areas in the home, including the shower or accessing areas of the community.

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

Whilst staff had supported people to access the community, for one person this had been limited due to some identified risks. They had not been fully supported to ensure they had equal opportunities to live a full life, instead this meant they were required to stay in their home for a period, which impacted negatively on the person. The provider had not implemented positive risk management strategies or effectively accessed support in partnership with other health professionals to achieve a positive outcome. The registered manager told us they had referred for support in relation to this from an occupational therapist, but this had not yet been provided.

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.

The provider’s support plans included a section for staff to record how they supported people to achieve their goals and aspirations. However, there was limited information recorded about this aspect of a person’s care. Feedback we received indicated the provider had not effectively supported the person or their relative to make informed decisions about their ongoing care needs in a timely way.