Archived: Pringles Care Services (Ealing)

We looked at the care plans for four people using the service. We saw the care plans included information about people's health, social and personal care needs and the support their care workers were expected to provide at each visit. The plans were updated regularly and people were involved in reviewing the care they received.

The provider had policies and procedures for safeguarding people. Care workers understood the procedures and were trained to identify possible abuse. A relative told us 'I don't worry when my [relative] is with the care workers, I know she's safe.' However, the agency did not always follow the correct procedures when reporting safeguarding concerns.

We looked at the staff recruitment records for four care workers and saw the provider carried out checks to make sure new care workers were suitable to work with people using the service.

There were procedures in place to monitor the quality of services provided. The provider carried out regular audits and people using the service were asked for their views on the care and support they received.

At our recent visit we spoke with two people who use the service who told us they were happy with the care they received. One person told us 'I've only been using them for a few weeks and find them ok, the staff are sometimes late in coming but that's usually due to public transport."

One person's relative told us they were unhappy with the care their relative received. They told us "staff would turn up late and write in the book they arrived on time."

We looked at the care records of five people and found the provider had taken proper steps to ensure people's care was planed appropriately to ensure people received care that met their needs.

We looked at the arrangements in place to protect people from abuse and found the provider had responded appropriately to an allegation of abuse and had robust recruitment systems in place to ensure people were cared for by staff who had a right to remain in the UK.

The service had also made improvements in relation to quality monitoring. However further improvements are required to ensure people receive their calls on time.

We found that were people were unable to make decisions about their care the agency had sought consent from those acting on people's behalf.

We found that care was not always planned and delivered in accordance with people's care needs. Where people were identified as having infectious conditions, pressure sores or challenging behaviours there was no care plans or risk assessments in place to manage these aspects of people's care. One relative told us " the care staff are good, but I am not always certain they know what to do".

Where the service identified people as having infectious conditions there was no protocols in place to prevent the spread of infection that may place other people using the service at risk of harm.

We looked at how the service completed its quality assurance and although we found recruitment checks to be robust there was no other quality checking being carried out. The service was not completing any auditing or seeking the views of people who use the service.