Profad Care Agency Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

Requires Improvement :This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People told us they were involved in their care planning. One person told us, "We were both involved in the planning of my care. I have a care plan, and this is reviewed regularly. The manager and the assistant manager review every 3 months. I have a check list. They also review how the carers are working. The carers understand my needs. If I say anything they tend to it. If they see something they are not happy with, they will tell my relative to get it looked at” A relative told us, "I was involved and they listened to me. Good relationship with (staff member). They will message me and let the carers know if there is something I want to be done. They will then change things straightaway. All are lovely, nice and friendly. I wish we could have more reviews of (relatives) care. I could see (relative)needs more care. Profad have supported me with accessing more care”

The service did not conduct care plan audits but after discussion the registered manager told us this would be introduced.

The registered manager told us that they worked closely with people and their relatives such as with 3 monthly care reviews and regular interactions with care coordinator, to ensure care is kept tailored to each person's needs and preference.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People had received care plan reviews which collated information on people's health and care needs, as well as people's wishes and preferences. However, this needed to be consistent through all care plans, for example some care plans did not state a preference for male or female staff or no preference, this was discussed with the registered manager who told us all care plans would be reviewed to ensure all contain the information required.

One person told us, "They make sure I get enough to drink. They register my fluid intake and keep a record in my care records." Another said, "We all as a team work on (relative) staying hydrated. (Relative) has a blended diet that my partner takes care of. The care staff will let me know if (relative) has eaten. I will remind them what (relative) does not like to eat. I also remind them to give (relative)something sweet if (relative) does not want to eat what we have prepared”

Staff told us they had enough time to support people during care calls, but if they do need more time, they just ring the office.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People and their relatives spoke positively about staff and told us they were confident that people knew their needs well. One person told us, "“They share information and communicate between themselves. They make notes so they can see what is going on with me. They look at the notes before they start. They know what to look for and how to treat it. Quite good”.

Staff were proactive in working with other services. For example, where people had become unwell, we saw that staff had contacted the GP or 111 for advice and support.

Staff told us they were a friendly team that worked well together, they told us they felt listened to when they made suggestions of changes to the rota.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported with their choices and maintaining their independence. One person told us,” Yes, they encourage us to do things for ourselves. I went through a stage of not washing my hair, it was difficult. They support me to do it using equipment. They also encourage me to walk about while they are here, as I have mobility issues. If I am not well, they will speak to the GP or call 111." Another said, "When I was able to get out of bed and use the zimmer frame, they made sure to support me. They would follow me to the recliner and make sure I was seated in the right place."

People's care plans mainly contained information as to what people could do for themselves, however this needed to be consistent throughout all care plans. This was discussed with the registered manager during this assessment, who assured us steps had been taken to address this. Staff understood the importance of supporting people to maintain their independence and offering people choice, so they are empowered. For example, people were supported to self-medicate where appropriate. Staff gave good examples as to how they support people to be as independent as possible.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People's desired goals and outcomes were not consistently recorded within people's care plans. However, one person told us, “Yes, improve the quality of our life. I went through lock down and I did not go out. I had a social call which encouraged me to go out. Not been out previously for 5 years." Another said, "Yes, they have improved the quality of life. This especially so for the carers who go that extra mile, like, (their) main carer. (Main staff carer) knows how (relative) works. Very natural. We are very lucky. (Staff carer)is also very good, talks to her”.

People received 3 monthly reviews and care staff shared information from their day-to-day observations of care with the management team. Care plans were updated promptly when people's needs changed.

This meant staff had up to date and accurate information to support people effectively.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People's care plans contained information regarding Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR).

However, care plans did not consistently evidence that capacity related questions were reviewed, and where required, best interest decisions were not in place. This was discussed with the registered manager, who started to implement best interests’ decisions during this assessment, however further work was needed to fully record the views of those involved and embed these processes consistently.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people's consent and demonstrated how they do this on a day-to day basis.