You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The inspection took place on the 22 and 23 March 2018 and was announced. It was the first inspection since the service was registered with us on 16 December 2016. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We wanted to be sure that someone would be in to speak with us.

Prospect Neuro is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to adults with physical disabilities, sensory needs, learning disabilities and those living with mental health conditions. It provides a care to people living with an acquired brain injury who live in their own houses and flats.

The service also provides an outreach service and became registered when it started to provide personal care. At the time of our inspection one person was receiving a personal care service, and a further eleven people were supported by the outreach service. Not everyone using Prospect Neuro 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.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

A person and their relative told us they felt safe and that the care was good. The relative told us, “I can trust the staff 100% with my relative’s safety”.

Quality assurance and governance systems were not fully developed. The provider did not have up to date policies and procedures in place to ensure staff had all the information and guidance they needed, For example, the equalities policy was not inclusive of promoting people’s equalities characteristics and there was no comprehensive system of monitoring trends and themes in relation to potential complaints, safeguarding’s or health and safety incidents. The impact of this was reduced due to the size of the service. However as the service had plans to expand we have made a recommendation that provider sources reputable guidance on developing their overarching governance of quality and improvement.

The person’s communication needs were anticipated and met and staff and the provider had an understanding of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). This is the standard that since August 2016 had required services to promote people’s information and communication needs. We made a recommendation that the provider sources further information about the AIS.

There were good systems and processes in place to keep people safe. Risks and accidents were assessed and staff received guidance on what actions to take to mitigate risk and ensure people and staff’s wellbeing at the service site and in the community. Staff knew how to recognise the potential signs of abuse and what action to take to keep people safe.

The registered manager ensured that when new staff were employed, safe recruitment practices were followed. They also ensured there were sufficient suitably skilled staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff received an induction and training to ensure they had up to date guidance on how to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us they felt well supported through supervision, appraisal and regular contact with each other.

People were supported to maintain good health and had assistance to access health care services when they needed to. Where needed, people were supported to receive their medicines safely, by staff that were trained and competent in administering medicines. Staff had a good understanding of the needs of people with an acquired brain injury.

The service and staff considered people’s capacity and worked in line

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was safe

People were supported by staff that were trained and understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from harm and abuse

People were supported to access medicines safely. Staff were trained and assessed as competent to administer medicines.

There were a sufficient number of staff to meet the needs of people. Staff were recruited safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was effective

People were supported by staff that were knowledgeable and had suitable training and support.

People were supported by staff that understood their emotional, health and physical needs and supported them to access adaptations to support them to live as independently as they could.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked in line with tits principles

People were supported to eat and drink sufficiently and their health needs were monitored, reviewed and planned for by staff who communicated well with health professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was caring

People were supported by staff that knew them well and understood what was important to them.

Staff adapted their communication style to meet the needs of the people they supported and encouraged people to be independent

Peoples� dignity, diversity and privacy was respected and their independence promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was responsive

The service provided information in an accessible format to meet the needs of the person.

Care plans and risk assessments provided guidance on how people needs were to be met

People and their families were encouraged and supported to raise and issues or concerns they had with the service.

Staff were knowledgeable and responsive to people�s emotional and health needs and promoted their independence.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 22 May 2018

The service was not always well led

Quality assurance systems did not monitor themes and trends and some policies were not consistently reviewed and updated.

The service had effective communication with social care and health practitioners.

The service had a clear value base that promoted people�s independence and there were clear lines of responsibility and accountability