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

At our last inspection we rated responsive as good, this rating remains unchanged. We found staff and leaders worked with other agencies to make sure people’s needs were met. The provider was aware of the need to ensure fair and equal treatment to everyone and there were policies to support this. Staff had received training in equality, diversity and inclusion. Not all people received support from regular staff and felt there were gaps when new staff were introduced.

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.

People’s needs were being met. Most people had been involved in setting up their care plans. One explained when the care first started “The manger completed a comprehensive care plan with us which identified [name] needs and the times that would be allocated“.

Staff told us the care plans were written and updated as needs changed. However, we found some care plans did not always have person specific information available. For example, during the on-site assessment, we identified one care plan did not provide up to date information on changes in people’s care needs and whether they had agreed to subsequent changes in care provision. The registered manager told us how they ensure people receive care which is tailored to their needs and works for them, including seeking the views of their representatives. They shared how staff are trained in delivering person centred care and is further promoted within team meetings.

People told us the service had worked with other care providers and health services to ensure they received continuity of care. However, some people reported they did not have regular carers and new staff did not have shadowing or introduction from regular carers. One person commented how, “Not all staff sit and chat and that is so important, the regular carers do this”.

Staff and leaders told us how they worked with other agencies to make sure people’s needs were met. The registered manager told us of the systems they have in place to ensure people receive support from consistent care staff. They shared the processes they had in place to ensure people had access to care, support and treatment when they needed it. For example, support from the office and field staff within emergency situations.

We asked the local authority for feedback and no concerns were raised about the way the service ensured continuity of care for people.

People’s preferred call times were sought from them at the time of assessment. These times did not always correlate with the provider’s scheduling system. Where people’s health had deteriorated, the provider had sought advice from relevant healthcare professionals. There was evidence of referrals and communication with agencies on behalf of people who were supported by the service. People’s care records demonstrated the service had worked with other care providers and health services to ensure people received continuity of care.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.