Archived: Prosper Community Care - York

Updated 8 March 2017

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

This inspection took place on 13 and 18 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location offices when we visited.

The inspection was conducted by one adult social care inspector.

Before visiting the service we reviewed information we already held, which included notifications sent to us. Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur. We also received feedback from the City of York Council’s contracts and commissioning team.

The registered provider was not asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to this inspection. This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

As part of this inspection we spoke with four people who used the service, four relatives of people who used the service, three care staff and the registered manager. We looked at five people’s care records, three care staff recruitment and training files and a selection of records used to monitor the quality of the service. We visited the agency office, and following this we spoke on the telephone with people who used the service. We also made a home visit to speak with someone who used the service and looked at the information available to care staff.

Updated 8 March 2017

This inspection took place on 13 and 18 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location office when we visited.

Prosper Community Care York is a domiciliary care agency that provides support to people who live in their own home, both adults with disabilities and older people. They provide services to people in the York area and the office is based in York. At the time of our inspection eight people were receiving support from the service. The service was registered in March 2016, so this was their first inspection.

The service is required to have a registered manager, and at the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

The registered provider had policies and procedures in place to guide staff in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, and staff we spoke with understood the different types of abuse that could occur and were able to explain what they would do if they had any concerns.

We found that people’s needs were assessed and risk assessments were in place to reduce risks and prevent avoidable harm.

Recruitment processes ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff received an induction and told us they had the training, supervision and support they needed to carry out their roles. The registered manager promoted a positive and person-centred culture.

Where staff supported people with their medicines, we found that this was recorded on medication administration records (MARs). Staff had received training in administering medicines and the registered manager checked MARs when they conducted quality assurance spot checks at people’s homes, to ensure they had received their medicines as prescribed.

The registered provider sought consent to provide care in line with legislation and guidance. We found that people had signed their care plans to give their consent to the care they received. The registered manager agreed to record details in people’s care files where anyone had a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for health and welfare. Staff completed Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training as part of their induction training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the principles of the MCA.

People were supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services. We saw evidence in care files of contact with other healthcare services, such as district nurses. People were also supported with their nutritional needs, where this was part of their care plan.

Most people we spoke with told us that the staff who supported them were kind, caring and respected their privacy and dignity. We observed staff delivering respectful and attentive care.

All people who used the service had a care plan which contained information about people’s needs, routines and preferences. These were regularly reviewed. We found some examples where care plans lacked detail in certain areas, such as in one person’s care plan regarding communication needs. However, most care plans contained sufficient detail and were person centred. Staff were able to demonstrate an understanding of people’s needs and preferences.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and relatives told us they knew how they could raise a complaint if they needed to, and would feel comfortable doing so. One relative had an outstanding concern and the registered manager responded to this shortly after our inspection visit.

There was a quality assurance system in place and the registered manager regularly visited people to check the care that staff provided. However, these checks were not always documented and the quality assurance system required further development and improvement to ensure the registered manager had a robust system for identifying issues and assessing the quality of the care. We have recommended that the registered provider seeks guidance from an appropriate source about best practice in quality assurance systems and audits, and develops their systems accordingly.

The majority of people and relatives we spoke with were very satisfied with the service they received and told us that staff were reliable, usually on time and provided care in line with their wishes and preferences.