Profad Care Agency Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last inspection we rated caring as good, this rating remains unchanged. We found staff knew how to treat people with kindness and people were treated as individuals. People were encouraged to be independent and have choice and control over their care. Staff told us the organisation looked after them, however, some said the fact they did not have regular breaks and time between calls, could impact negatively on their wellbeing. Staff received regular supervisions and team meetings. The organisation had provisions in place for staff who were from overseas on a visa sponsorship.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The majority of people provided positive feedback about how staff responded to their needs. Most told us office staff responded promptly and they knew they could contact the out of hours number if required.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of delivering personalised care. Staff confirmed, “The service user is always at the centre of care and I always ask what they want/need, ensure they have freedom of choice and encourage them to do the things they can do.” The registered manager told us they complete a detailed assessment with a person prior to care delivery. They shared how they work with partner agencies to ensure they gather sufficient information on the person to be able to support them effectively when their care commenced.

All staff confirmed they received regular supervisions and had either attended or received feedback about team meetings. However, some advised they did not have regular breaks or time allocated in between calls, to support their wellbeing. Some of the staff were from overseas on a visa sponsorship and confirmed they had felt supported through this process. The registered manager told us how they promote an open-door policy for staff to raise any concerns they needed too. They shared how they involve staff in areas of improvement and ask for suggestions, ideas to improve care delivery to people. The registered manager told us the provider is supportive to their staff and support people through any reasonable adjustments, should this be needed.

Staff scheduling showed staff were seen to work long hours with little rest between visits to people. Sufficient travel times did not always accommodate traveling to and from people’s home. The provider had mechanisms in place for staff to provide feedback. For example, through surveys, team meetings and supervision.