You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 17 May 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 17 May 2018 and was announced. The registered provider was given short notice of our inspection. We did this because the service is small and the registered manager was sometimes out of the office and we needed to be sure that they would be available.

Prof-Care is a small domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care for people living in their own homes in the community. At time of the inspecton the service was providing support to 21 older people.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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.

People received care from the same group of care workers and were introduced to any new staff who would be supporting them. Relatives told us care workers turned up on time and stayed the full amount of time stated in their family members care plan.

People we spoke with were very satisfied with the quality of care they had received and made positive comments about the staff. Comments included, “I think they [staff] are doing a wonderful job” and “Brilliant, the best I have ever had.”

Relatives we spoke with were very satisfied with the quality of care their family member had received. Some relatives told us they had recommended the service to others. Relatives also made positive comments about the staff and the senior managers.

We saw there were sufficient staff to provide regular care workers to people using the service.

We saw people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people.

People had risk assessments in place, to ensure that potential risks to people were managed and minimised whilst still promoting independence.

There were robust systems in place to ensure people received medicines at the time they needed them.

We saw people’s care plans required more detail about people’s personal preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed.

People were supported with their health and dietary needs, where this was part of their plan of care.

Staff underwent an induction and shadowing period prior to supporting people on their own. We saw there was a robust system in place to ensure staff received regular updates to their training.

People we spoke with told us they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However, we found that some care staff we spoke with did not have a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

All the people and relatives we spoke with told us that any concerns raised were taken seriously and appropriate action taken.

People and relatives we spoke with knew who the nominated individual and registered manager were and spoke highly of them and the service as a whole.

There were regular checks completed by senior staff to assess and improve the quality of the service provided.

The service actively sought the views of people and their representatives to continuously improve the service.