Profad Care Agency

Profad Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care and support to people living in their homes. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. At the time of our inspection the provider was supporting 94 people in the London Borough of Southwark.

People’s experience of using this service

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were identified and effective measures put in place to mitigate these. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and knew how to report any concerns they had with people’s safety. People’s medicines were managed safely by staff who had received the relevant training. The provider followed safe recruitment processes. There were safe infection control procedures to reduce the risks associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. The provider had not identified some issues with timekeeping that we found in the electronic care monitoring (ECM) system data we reviewed. We have made a recommendation about improving the way the system is monitored.

The provider had made improvements to the quality assurance and auditing processes since the last inspection and there was an effective system in place to ensure? safe care was maintained. People told us they received the care and support they needed, and managers regularly checked on them to make sure they were happy with their service. We received comments such as, “I wouldn’t hesitate in recommending the agency” and “They are very efficient and caring. They care about our welfare.” The provider worked in partnership with other professionals to plan and deliver care. One professional told us, “Our recent experience with this provider is excellent.”

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was good (published 29 January 2018)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. The overall rating for this service has remained good.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Not everyone using Profad Care receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection Profad Care was providing personal care to 39 people.

The service had a registered manager, who had been in post since October 2017. 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 who used the service told us that this was a good agency, and that they felt treated with respect by their care workers. The provider had systems in place to assess people’s needs and provide care in a way which met people’s needs and preferences. Care plans included a high level of detail on how best to support people, including how to provide reassurance when people were anxious and upset. Records of care provided showed that people received care as planned. People’s nutritional needs were clearly assessed and care workers demonstrated that they were meeting these.

The provider had systems in place to assess risks to people using the service and to ensure that people received their medicines safely. Staff were recruited in line with safer recruitment measures and assessed for their understanding of their roles as part of the interview process. Care workers had received a detailed induction in line with nationally recognised standards and were given the opportunity to shadow more experienced members of staff. Team meetings and newsletters were used to clearly outline manager’s expectations of care workers, although these were not consistently carried out.

There were systems in place to ensure that people’s views on their care were sought, including how they wanted care delivered and if they were satisfied with the care they were receiving. There were review processes in place, but as most people had not been receiving care for more than a few months it was too early to assess their effectiveness. Where there had been complaints and concerns the provider investigated these and was able to learn from these. Care worker’s understanding of privacy and dignity were assessed during recruitment and spot checks, and there was information on care plans about how to promote people’s independence.

People had consented to their care, and where they were unable to make a decision the provider was meeting their responsibilities to assess people’s capacity to make decisions and demonstrate that they were working in people’s best interests.

Managers carried out spot checks on care workers to ensure their competence. We found that managers did not have robust systems in place to audit records such as medicines, finances and daily logs, which meant there was a risk that significant errors or omissions might be overlooked. We have made a recommendation about this.