You are here

Archived: Prestige Nursing – Milton Keynes Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 28 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 28 June, 7 and 14 July 2016 and was announced. Prestige Nursing Milton Keynes provides personal care to people in the Milton Keynes area. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care for 18 people in their own homes. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

The service did not have 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. A manager had been appointed at the service; they had submitted a registered manager application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which was in progress.

At the last inspection of the service on 13 November and 1December 2015 we asked the provider to take action to improve how they managed the recoding of medicines. The provider sent us an action plan telling us how they planned to improve. At this inspection we found the actions had been completed.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and what they needed to do to protect people from abuse.

Risks to individuals and the environment were identified and managed. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual, to enable people to live as safely and independently as possible.

Staffing arrangements ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. The recruitment systems ensured that staff had the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience and were suitable to work with people using the service.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and where the service was responsible; people were supported to take their medicines safely.

Staff received regular training which provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. They also received regular supervision and support from senior care staff.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing any care and support. They were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 legislation.

Where the service was responsible, people were supported to have a balanced diet that promoted healthy eating.

Staff met people’s day to day health needs and took appropriate action in response to changing health conditions.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and their privacy was respected. The staff understood and promoted the principles of person centred care.

People’s needs were assessed and their care plans had sufficient detail to reflect how they wanted to receive their care and support. People using the service and/or their relatives were involved in the care reviews.

Complaints were responded to appropriately and they were used as an opportunity for learning and improvement.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities. Their leadership style inspired the staff team to deliver a quality service. Staff at all levels understood the ethos and vision of the service.

Robust quality assurance systems were used to measure and review the delivery of care, and drive continuous improvement.

Inspection carried out on 13 November and 1 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 13 November and 1 December 2015 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 the registered manager would be in. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Prestige Nursing - Milton Keynes, provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service.

The service did not have 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 manager left the service in February 2015 and a new manager had been appointed and they were in the process of registering as the manager with the Care Quality Commission.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines. However the medicines administration records (MAR) charts in use did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that people consistently received their medicines as prescribed.

Quality management control systems and audits took place to help develop the service and drive improvement. However, where the provider was responsible for the management of medicines this area had not been effectively monitored.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse. They knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and when to use the whistleblowing procedure.

Risk assessments were in place and centred on the needs of the individual. Potential risks to people had been identified and plans were into place to enable them to live as safely and independently as possible.

The staff recruitment systems ensured that staff were safe to work with people using the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs.

Staff were aware of people’s food and drink preferences and provided sufficient support for people to eat a balanced diet.

Staff received regular training which provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.They also received regular supervision and support from their supervisors.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and they were knowledgeable about the requirements of the legislation. Consent was sought from people’s before staff provided their care and support needs.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and their privacy was respected. Their needs were assessed and the care plans gave guided the staff on how people wanted to be supported. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in reviews of their care.

A complaints procedure was in place and appropriate systems were in place for responding to complaints.

We identified that the provider was not meeting regulatory requirements and were in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection carried out on 17 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We went back to review the improvements that had been made following an inspection visit during January 2013. We spoke with two people and a relative of a person who used the service. We also spoke with the manager and two members of staff. The manager of the service was in the process of registering as the registered manager of the service.

Two people told us that they were pleased with the level of care that they received. They also told us that most of their care was provided by a regular carer who understood their care needs. However, they told us that when their regular carer was unable to attend because of sickness or annual leave, they were happy with the care provided by the staff who covered their duties.

One relative told us that their family member had received a re-assessment of their care plan to make sure that their needs were being met by the staff. They also told us that they were happy to raise any complaints or concerns they had about the service with the provider and knew that these would be taken seriously.

We found that the service had made improvements to the arrangements for providing care to people and to the systems in place for supporting the staff. We also found that the service managed people�s complaints effectively and made appropriate arrangements to ensure people gave their consent for their care. We found that the provider had a recruitment system that ensured that the staff were of good character before they started work.

Inspection carried out on 3 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one person who used the service and two relatives of people who also used the service. This was to find out their views about the quality of care provided. Most people and their relatives told us that the care received by the service was of a good standard. One person said that they had a regular carer who respected their views and listened to them about how their daily care needs were to be provided.

The two relatives we spoke with told us that their family member�s were usually well cared for by their regular carer who had a good understanding of how to meet their care needs. However, they told us that when their regular carer was on holiday, the level of care received was not at the usual standard. One relative of a young person told us that the agency provided staff cover when their regular carer was on holiday. However the care staff sometimes attended later than the agreed time and this meant that the care delivered was rushed. They also told us that on one occasion the care staff had forgotten to give their family member their breakfast. They told us that the late arrival of care staff impacted upon their family member�s ability to get ready and attend school. Another relative told us that the staff who covered the shifts when their regular carer was on leave, did not have a good understanding of their family member�s routines and the reasons why this was important for them to have this correct routine followed each day.