Profad Care Agency Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

At our last inspection we rated well led as requires improvement, this rating remains unchanged. The provider's quality assurance systems and processes were not as effective as they needed to be. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was in relation to audits, care plans and records, medicines optimisation, staff rotas and call scheduling. The provider has told us how they will make improvements, and we will review these at our next assessment. We found staff and leaders had been provided with appropriate training to be effective in their roles. Systems kept people’s records confidential. There were mechanisms in place to allow people, relatives and staff to speak up and have their voices heard. There were policies and procedures in place to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. There was evidence of the provider liaising with health professionals to ensure safe care and treatment for people.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff showed an understanding of the organisation’s values, aims and visions. Staff confirmed regular meetings were held and subjects discussed. The registered manager told us of the providers vision and values, to deliver the best quality care to people. They shared how they promote this with their staff, by delivering care which is person centred to people.

The provider’s values were to ensure quality care and support were delivered to people who use their services. These visions were regularly discussed with staff to ensure person centred care was promoted and provided to people.

Staff told us leaders were visible and they had contact details to approach them if they had any concerns. staff provided overall positive feedback about the managment. The registered manager knew and understood their regulatory responsibilities. They understood their responsibilities to lead by example to staff and taking accountability within their role.

There was a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The registered manager had been in post since the previous inspection of the service. Statutory notifications were submitted in line with the providers regulatory responsibilities. Leaders were knowledgeable about the issues and priorities for the quality of the service.

Staff confirmed they felt able to speak up and they had regular supervision. Staff confirmed they felt their voices were heard. For example, “I feel able to report any concerns to my manager or to senior management“. Leaders told us they had mechanisms in place to allow people, relatives and staff to speak up. The registered manager told us of the systems the provider has in place, to ensure the opportunity for open discussion. For example, through regular meetings, surveys and supervision.

The provider promoted ways for staff to raise any concerns. They held regular meetings with staff, giving them the opportunity to raise any issues. Staff were given supervisions, should they not feel able to speak up within a group setting. There was a whistleblowing policy and procedure in place which staff had access to.

Most staff were very positive about the service and the support they were getting. Some staff spoke about positive experiences, “I can call my manager at any time, [name] is very supportive, as are the other managers” and “Managers are friendly, we can speak to them about anything”. The registered manager told us how they provided support to staff to ensure there was equality, diversity and inclusion. For example, recognising people’s protected characteristics and ensuring appropriate measures were in place to support these.

The provider had policies in place to promote workforce equality, diversity, and inclusion. Staff had opportunities through supervision and team meetings to share their experiences and raise any concerns.

The registered manager told us of the systems they had in place to ensure management and oversight. However, we found these were not always effective to ensure good governance oversight at the service. The registered manager and other senior staff conducted spot checks to monitor staff performance. Staff also confirmed there were process in place to monitor their performance. Staff and leaders understood their roles and responsibilities and had opportunities to discuss these.

The provider’s systems in place to ensure good governance of the care provided for people were not effective. Audits were being completed; however, we found some audits were not effective and had not identified the concerns we found in relation to oversight of medicines management, care planning, staff rotas and call scheduling. The failure to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service effectively was a breach of Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Systems were effective in making sure people’s records were kept confidentially. Staff had received training in data protection.

Most people and their relatives told us the provider communicated well and kept them informed of all necessary information. However, feedback from five families indicated they had problems in this area. Comments included, “I have spoken to the manager and nothing has changed since I last spoke to them 4 or 5 weeks ago”, and “You cannot always get through to the office, to speak to who you need to when you ring and it can take some time to speak to the right person“. People told us they received the support they needed with involvement from other agencies.

The provider had developed contacts with commissioners for the areas they covered. We did not receive any negative feedback from partner agencies. One comment from a social care professional confirmed, “They follow up any issues or concerns, and will always feedback outcomes to myself”.

The provider worked with their local healthcare professionals to ensure people received effective care. For example, where people’s health had deteriorated, we saw evidence of staff seeking advice from healthcare professionals.

Staff confirmed they had opportunities for learning and reflection. One staff explained, “We have refresher training on best practice” and how their good practice had been rewarded with ‘carer of the month’ award. Another shared, “The management team always work to involve staff in discussions in how to improve care”. The registered manager understood the importance of ensuring that learning happens when things go wrong. They encouraged staff to speak up with ideas for improvement.

The provider has systems in place to seek feedback from key people. For example, people, staff and relatives. This was analysed, and actions were taken to learn from this. However, some of the themes we identified, had previously been noted and raised with the provider, yet had still not been resolved. Information was available for people to raise their concerns with external bodies; we suggested additional information to direct people to the specific local teams would be helpful.