Profad Care Agency Limited

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.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 and their relatives spoke well of the regular staff team who supported them, and good working relationships had been formed. One relative told us," Their care is centred around (relative) They know (relative) likes and dislikes. They are aware of (relatives)care plan.

Care plans mainly contained enough information on what was important to people, their preferences, likes and dislikes. This meant that care staff could support people in line with what they had expressed. However, as detailed within this report, this needed to be consistent throughout all care plans. This had been discussed with the registered manager who took steps during this assessment to update all care plans.

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

People told us they had regular care staff supporting them and were happy with the care they received. One person told us, “I have a regular carer who is lovely”. A relative told us, "We have regular carers, so have continuity of care”. Another said,"(Relative) has some that have left. Tend to stick to the same carers. Got to know them. They understand (relatives) health needs. They know (relative) well.”

Systems and processes were in place to promote joined up care, including leaders working with other professionals, making appropriate health referrals.

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

One person told us, “The information they have about us is secure”. A family member told us, “Not really receive much information. It is easy to understand”. Another said, “Easy to understand”. Staff told us they conversed with people according to their individual communication needs and gave examples of this with the people they support.

A data protection policy and procedure were in place. Discussions with the registered manager and staff assured us they understood the importance of treating and protecting people’s confidential information securely and sensitively.

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.

People told us they were listened to and involved in regular reviews about their care. One family member told us, “Never made a complaint. Not sure about the complaints policy. I would ring the office. I have not made any suggestions. It has always been spot on”. Another said, “No complaints. I wouldn’t know. If I had a complaint I would say it."

People were encouraged to give feedback on the service, through discussion with their care staff, spot checks, care reviews and satisfactions surveys. The care coordinator confirmed they spoke with people regularly and people frequently contacted the office directly.

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

One person told us, “They are quite flexible as they have offered if I needed support during a call, they would divert another carer”. A family member told us, “They are flexible. They have adjusted (relatives) hours. They have added more carers. We have the equipment to aid (relative) access around (relative)home”. Another said, “If I rang and asked if they could come an hour later. They will ring back, flexible. If (relative) has to go into respite, they just ask that we let them know when (relative) is coming back. I don’t need to panic. They are always there.”

There was an out of hours support line in place. Staff told us this was answered promptly when used, ensuring people could access support at any time

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

The provider had appropriate policies in place such as safeguarding, complaints, Equality and Diversity and a lone working policy.

Staff had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training.

People and their relatives mainly told us they felt listened to by the provider and they felt their support was tailored to them, including their wishes and preferences.

The provider had appropriate policies in place, including safeguarding, complaints, lone working and equality and diversity. Staff had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training. People and their relatives told us they felt listened to and described the care they received as personalised and respectful of their wishes and preferences. Overall feedback was mainly positive, with one person telling us. "I would like to think they treat me and the carers fairly".

People were not always 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.

The registered manager told us they were not currently supporting anyone with end-of-life care (EOL) although they had previously, and staff had received EOL training and there was and EOL policy in place.

People's care plans contained clear information regarding Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and people's wishes. However, they did not consistently evidence that people had been offered opportunities to discuss or record their end-of- life preferences. This was discussed with the registered manager during this assessment who agreed to review this. Feedback was mixed, one person told us, “No discussions about end-of-life care. (Relative) does have a DNACPR in place.”