Professional Care Support Services Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. People and their relatives confirmed this. They told us they were able to make choices about their care, and these were respected. Relatives explained the provider had been responsive when people’s needs had changed. Managers created personalised care plans. They regularly reviewed and updated these.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, and ensured care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received continuity of care and support from the same staff who regularly visited them at home. The service ensured this continuity by allocating people a small, stable staff team that worked well together to provide seamless support. People told us staff understood their care needs and that they worked well with multiple external health and social care professionals to consistently meet their needs. One person said, “I always have the same carers.” A relative added, “We’ve had the same small group of carers for years now who know my [family member] and me very well. Due to my [family members] health care needs we need to have continuity of care from staff who know her daily routines and moods. This is exactly what this agency provides us, which we do appreciate.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Managers and staff were aware of their responsibility to meet people’s communication needs and make information they needed accessible. Staff collaborated with people, their families and external professionals to understand how each person preferred to communicate. Staff ensured information was shared with people in a way they understood. The service's previous CQC inspection report was displayed in their offices and was easily accessible on the provider's website. The display of the ratings is a legal requirement, to inform people, those seeking information about the service and visitors of our judgments.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider actively listened to people’s views and involved them in decisions about their care. Feedback was encouraged, acted upon promptly, and used to improve people’s experiences. People were routinely asked to share their experiences about the care they received from this agency through surveys and when the management team telephoned or visited them at home. People felt their views directly shaped the support they received. A relative told us, “Staff do listen to what we have to say. The managers and supervisors from the office often visit us at home to find out what we think of our carers and the quality of the care they give us.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it.

People had equitable access to the service, and support was adapted to ensure their needs, preferences and circumstances were met. Adjustments were made to promote inclusion, safety and choice. The service ensured people’s preferences for female staff were respected, demonstrating commitment to equitable access that accounted for personal comfort, privacy and cultural considerations. Care plans clearly documented this preference, and staff confirmed it was followed consistently. People told us staff usually arrived on time for their home visits and always completed all the tasks they were expected to within the agreed timeframes as set out in their care plan. One person said, “My carers are rarely late and will let us now if they’re going to be.” A relative added, “Our carers always visit us at home at the times we’ve agreed with the agency.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

The service promoted equitable experiences by ensuring care was consistent, respectful and adapted to people’s preferences. The registered manager assessed and planned for people’s diverse needs. They made sure barriers to providing care were identified and mitigated. This ensured outcomes were positive, and people felt understood, safe and well supported. Staff respected people’s identity, personal routines and need for consistency. Staff undertook training to understand about equality and diversity. Staff knew how to protect people from discriminatory behaviours and practices.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of our assessment, the registered manager confirmed people currently using the service did not require any support with end-of-life care. People and their families were supported to be involved in discussions and participate in decisions about their future care needs and end of life wishes. People’s care records included a section where individual’s end of life care and support needs and wishes could be recorded. When people and their families had declined to discuss end of life care wishes this decision was recorded in a person’s care plan and was regularly reviewed. Staff had received end of life care training.