Profad Care Agency Limited

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Profad is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people, including older people, people living with dementia and people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people living in their own homes. The assessment was carried out between 16 September to 01 November 2024 based on information of concern we received. We looked at Safe and Well-led and included some additional priority quality statements. In total, we looked at 21 quality statements. We identified shortfalls at the service and breaches in relation to good governance. The systems in place were not effective in identifying the concerns found during our assessment. These were in relation to auditing, care planning, medicines and staff scheduling. There were 160 people using the service. We made phone calls on 09 September 2024 and spoke with 13 people, receiving care and support and/or their family members. We announced our visit to the office and attended on 06 and 09 September 2024 to corroborate information. We reviewed care plans, and associated documents and spoke with 16 members of staff. We used an Expert by Experience to get feedback from people and relatives. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

People's experience of this service

We received mixed feedback from people about how they were supported to understand and manage any risks which related to them. People said they did not always receive a telephone call when staff were going to be late and staff were often late to visits. Several people said they felt rushed, or staff only stayed for a short time. Some people did not feel their staff were well prepared, in providing the required support in relation to food hygiene or moving and handling. People said they received personalised care and support and felt the service was well managed and were able to speak up if they had concerns. Five relatives had less confidence in the management team, advising they had previously raised concerns and no improvements had been made. People had access to the equipment they needed to stay safe, and needs were assessed before support commenced. People had access to the support they needed from external healthcare agencies. Staff followed good infection, prevention and control processes (IPC). People were treated as individuals and supported to be independent, staff ensured people had choice and control over their own support.