Prof-Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs including capacity and decision making were not always full assessed or explored and information gathered did not always transfer through to care plans and risk assessments. People’s care plans did not always reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. This included any protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, the provider failed to record the decision-making process. However, staff were clear in conversations we had with them about how to seek consent and how to support people with decision making. People and their relatives told us they were actively involved in care planning. People had been referred to other health professionals as required and there were systems in place to monitor people’s individual wellbeing. However, systems to provide oversight of the whole service and drive improvement were not robust. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Assessments were completed prior to support starting but were not comprehensive and the information collected did not always transfer through to the support plan and risk assessments. Support plans and risk assessments were not person centred and lacked detail of how a person wanted to be supported and information around capacity and communication. One person had information in their assessment regarding hearing and sight, but this information was not included in their support plan. The provider offered reassurance that staff were aware of this information and that shortly this information would be available in the new electronic recording and management system.

People told us they were involved in their care planning, and they were regularly consulted with, where care was reviewed. One person commented, “All my needs are being met without fail.” Relatives were mostly positive about their involvement in the assessment and review of the care of their relative. One relative said, “Yes, I am kept fully informed of the care plan and am still very active in having my say.” Another commented, “[Person] needs are not being met.” However, support plans in place were not person centred and did not reflect people’s individual preferences.

The registered manager confirmed that a meeting was held with people and their relatives before support started to assess support needs and any risks. Staff could tell us how they were informed when people’s needs changed and their role in identifying and notifying changes. One staff said, “Any changes, document and ring line manager and ask for further assessment so elevated to next level of support.”

Staff were aware of the importance of involving people in all aspects of their care and ensuring they were meeting people’s assessed needs. One staff commented, “I have learnt how to support people with dementia, how to communicate with them and make sure their needs are met especially food and nutrition as they might not remember when they had their meals or not.”

In people's care records there was evidence of involvement from other health care professionals and staff made referrals to ensure people’s health needs were met. However, the lack of detail and information in support plans and risk assessments did not provide enough guidance for staff on what was important to people or how to meet people's support needs. The provider was confident that the new electronic recording and management system would resolve issues identified.

Most relatives told us they were involved in ensuring their relative was receiving care in line with their support plan. One relative commented, “I am more than happy with her care and feel most definitely that all her needs are being met as best they can.” However, support plans were not personalised or detailed.

We saw the provider had successfully worked with partners and had been involved in discussions with them about people care needs. We did not receive any specific formal feedback from partners we contacted about Prof-Care Limited.

Staff recognised the importance of working in partnership. One staff commented, “It is always a positive environment, based on teamwork, great communication and engagement with the client needs.”

The provider had processes in place to ensure staff teams worked together effectively and shared information. Evidence of joint working with partners was available.

People told us the care they received was effective. They told us staff had ensured they got appropriate support if there was a change in their health. One person commented, “We discuss what I need as far as care is concerned and tweak things as and when needed. We work as a team.”

Staff could describe how they supported people to remain healthy and what action they would take if someone’s health changed, or they required additional support

People and their relatives told us they received support from staff to access health services. One person said, “They are the first to notice if I need the district nurse or further help and will organise anything and everything for me which is a godsend.” A relative commented, “They are great at prompting when [person] needs a little extra help like a chiropodist or nurses or the like.”

In people’s records we found evidence of involvement from other professionals such as district nurses, social workers and doctors. Where people’s needs had increased, we saw evidence of requests for additional support time or 2:1 support to ensure people received the appropriate level of support.

People were positive about the support they received from staff. One person commented, “they get to know how I like things done and always chat away and make sure I am happy.”

The provider regularly contacted people to gather feedback on their care and had systems in place to monitor support provided including on site observations. However, lack of robust systems to provide service level oversight may result in themes and trends not being identified and missed opportunities to improve service delivery.

The registered manager and senior staff told us they worked alongside staff to ensure there was effective monitoring of people’s care and treatment and their outcomes.

People and most relatives told us they felt consulted. One person said, “Yes, I really think they do listen to me.”

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before care was delivered. One staff commented, “I can ensure consent by explaining procedures clearly, respecting autonomy, and assessing the individual's capacity to make decisions.”

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Everyone had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and consent was discussed in team meetings. However, people’s support plans did not contain information about the type of decisions they were able to make and how best to support them to make these decisions. The provider confirmed that they would ensure that this information would be included in the new electronic recording and management system for each person supported.