You are here

Archived: PRC Outreach Services

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 August 2012
Date of Publication: 28 August 2012
Inspection Report published 28 August 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider was compliant with this standard. The service provided was reliable and dependable and ensured the dignity, privacy and independence of the people that used the service.

User experience

We spoke with three people who used the service to seek their views of the service. Comments received included: “They’re [staff] all lovely”, “I wouldn’t know what to do without them” and “nothing but kindness shown to us”. Everyone we spoke to was complimentary of the staff.

Comments seen on the most recent quality assurance questionnaire included: “one can’t improve on perfection”, superb service” and “more than exceeded expectations”.

Other evidence

We looked at the care plans for three people who used the service. We saw that information was not always provided by Social Services or other purchasing agencies. when appropriate, regarding peoples care needs. The provider might like to note that the care plans seen did not provide sufficient detail to direct staff, tending to assume the reader had prior knowledge of the person. This level of information is important to help to ensure a consistency of care provision. For example, one care plan seen said the individual needed assistance with swimming, but did not explain what that assistance entailed. The manager and team leader were able to describe what this meant when asked, but this instruction had not transferred to the individuals care plan.

The care plans inspected showed peoples’ preferences and choices regarding their personal care needs. The persons preferred form of address was recorded within the care plan documentation. The provider might like to note that the care plans we saw were not signed by the person or their representative, to indicate they had participated in determining their care or in the review of their care.

Comments received showed that the service was usually reliable and dependable, with visit time variations being within acceptable parameters for people using the service.

Records that showed that telephone calls from people that used the service were responded to were not seen, and the manager confirmed that a record of this type was not used.