• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Prospects Domiciliary Care Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Marion House, 40 The Avenue, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH9 2UW (01202) 521985

Provided and run by:
Prospects for People with Learning Disabilities

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

4 July 2016

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 4 July 2016. Prospects Domiciliary Care Service is a small agency that provides personal care and support for people with a learning disability who live in their own homes. The service is run by Prospects for People with Learning Disabilities, a Christian based organisation, and predominantly provides support for individuals who are practising their faith. At the time of the inspection two people were receiving support from Prospects Domiciliary Care Service. We told the provider one day before our visit that we would be coming to ensure the people we needed to talk to would be available.

Prospects Domiciliary Care Service has 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.

The domiciliary care service is managed by a registered manager who also manages a care home for people with learning disabilities run by Prospects for People with Learning Disabilities. Staff from the home also work for the domiciliary care service and all staff are subject to the same recruitment, training and supervision as those employed within the home. The service also operated under the same policies and procedures as the care home. Both of the people who used the agency were familiar with the care home and also the day services programme that operated at the same site as the care home but from a different building. This meant they knew the staff that supported them and staff had a good knowledge of each person and their needs.

People were safeguarded because staff had been trained in the protection of adults and knew what they needed to do in the event of a safeguarding concern. Medicines were managed safely to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. The registered manager was aware of each person's routines and needs and planned the rota to meet this. In addition, there was an on-call telephone service that people could use to speak to staff if they needed assistance.

Staff told us they felt supported and could gain informal advice or guidance whenever they needed to. Staff were trained to make sure they were able to meet the individual needs of people living at the home.

Where people were able to make their own decisions staff sought their consent before they supported them. Where people may have lacked capacity to make a specific decision staff were acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care. Staff knew the people they were caring for and supporting, including their preferences and personal histories.

People had support plans that reflected their personal history, individual preferences and interests. Staff had read people’s support plans and used the information to make sure they helped the individual in the way they wanted or needed to be supported.

People had a keyworker. A keyworker is a named member of staff that was responsible for ensuring people’s care needs were met. This included supporting them with activities and spending time with them.

The service had a positive, open, person-centred culture. Staff said they felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager and were confident that these would be addressed. They were also aware of how to raise concerns and whistleblow with external agencies such as the Care Quality Commission.

The manager regularly worked alongside staff, which gave them an insight into how their staff cared for and supported people. It also enabled them to share good practice and assess staff's abilities.

Quality assurance systems, developed by the provider, had been implemented within the service. This meant that there were satisfactory arrangements in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

28 January 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection Prospects Domiciliary Care Service was providing support for four people living in two houses in the area. One person was supported with personal care and we looked at their care records. We spoke with one person using the service, who told us 'It's an efficient service and well run.' The service operated from an office in a residential care home and staff worked in both services. Systems and processes were common to both services.

At the time of the inspection there had been no registered manager in post for about nine months. The regional director told us they had failed to recruit to the post. We spoke with the acting manager and a practice manager from elsewhere within the organisation who was providing support. We also spoke with the practice team leader and three support staff.

We found that the assessment, planning and delivery of care were coordinated and centred on the needs of the individual.

People were protected from the risk of unsafe support with their medication because staff were trained and worked within clear policies.

There were effective systems in place to ensure people were safe because staff were subject to rigorous recruitment procedures and a thorough induction. One person living in the care home told us about how they were involved in the recruitment of staff.

People benefited from safe care and support because the provider monitored the quality of service that people received.

27 February 2013

During a routine inspection

This was a scheduled inspection. However, prior to the inspection we had received information of concern related to record keeping, risk assessments, suitability of staff and supervision of staff. As part of the inspection we looked at three care plans and visited two people who received a service in their home. We also spoke with the manager, the quality assurance lead, and a trainer for the company.

People were able to plan how they spent their time. We observed staff speaking with people to find out their wishes and saw care was carried out according to the person's wishes.

People were supported to give consent to medical treatments and interventions. When necessary best interest decisions had been made and recorded.

There was sufficient information available to be shared with other health professionals to ensure people received the care they needed.

People were involved in the assessment and care planning process. Representatives had been involved when needed to ensure all needs were identified and planned for.

People were safeguarded from abuse by measures the provider had put in to place.

People were supported by staff who had received appropriate training to carry out their role and were supervised to ensure they were competent.

The provider had suitable quality assurance systems in place, which covered record keeping, audits of finances and care documentation. The procedure had planned dates for review of documentation or audits.