Prime Care Domiciliary Essex

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people's needs. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. We assessed a total of 7 quality statements from this key question. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people's needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives did not always feel involved in their care. Although people told us staff were accessible to discuss their care, relatives felt they were not always involved in the care planning and decision-making process. A relative told us, “I have been trying to get in touch with someone at the office to discuss my concerns, but no one ever answers the phone.”

Staff told us they knew people well and had access to all the information they needed to provide support to people. One member of staff said, “The best part of my job is that I get to meet different people, and I see a broad cross section people with different needs.” Staff worked with people to understand how they wished to be support and promoted positive outcomes for them. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their care needs and the support they required as individuals. However, people’s care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred.

We saw positive comments from people who had been supported by the service when they returned from hospital one comment said, “The service was amazing and fantastic.” Another comment said, “They had never had carers before, and they were grateful of the help and support they received.”

The registered manager had worked across health provision to ensure people have continuity of care and access to the health providers they need.

We received positive feedback from a healthcare professional. They told us, "We work closely alongside Prime Care and have not encountered any issues."

The registered manager had regular meetings with the hospital discharge team to report on progress and any additional services people may need. They have also made good links with the local mental health team, palliative care team, social workers and community facilities to support people with access to care.

People told us they received information on their care from the service which was kept in a folder in their home. However, most people we spoke to did not have a care plan and had not seen what was written in the care plan.

The registered manager said they had a diverse workforce with different language skills that could be utilized if needed.

The management did not always ensure information on people’s care was accurate and up to date.

Most people we spoke to told us they did not have any complaints, and they did not know the manager’s name. a person told us, “I don’t know who the manager is, I haven’t got any complaints, but I wouldn’t know who to approach even if I did.” Another person told us, “I would say they need to coordinate more because the acute people turn up at the same time as the carers and what’s the point of that?”

Staff told us they spoke to people regularly and people were able to provide feedback on the care given. However, people and relative’s we spoke to told us they had not had an opportunity to share feedback on the care given.

There was a complaints policy where the registered manager or operations manager investigated concerns and took action to resolve these. The operations manager told us they carried out regular call monitoring calls. However, there was no record of the calls made and people and relatives we spoke to confirmed they had not received a call.

Most people and relatives told us they had access to all the services they needed.

The operations manager told us regular meetings were held with all staff to ensure appropriate referrals were made in a timely way when needed. However, staff meetings did not include action plans to evidence how issues raised were to be addressed, dates to be achieved and if actions had been resolved or remained outstanding

We received positive feedback from a healthcare professional. A health professional told us, “The management are very approachable, and we can discuss any concerns we have, and we work well with them.” However, people’s care plans did not contain information about involvement with other professionals.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people had access to the right services when they needed them. However, people’s care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate or up to date.

People told us they were supported to access the healthcare they needed such as visits from the GP practice, district nurses and palliative care team.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff were aware of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act acknowledging diversity and valuing differences. However, the staff training matrix did not provide any dates of when staff completed their training. This meant we cannot be assured staff were trained and skilled in supporting people safely with the relevant training required. Following the assessment, the operations manager sent an updated training matrix which included dates of completed staff training.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare to maintain their wellbeing. Where indicated people were supported to attend specialist health appointments for continued monitoring and treatment. The service had developed good relationships with their GP practice and district nurse team. However, people’s medical information in their care records was not always accurate or up to date.

People's support plans did not include any information relating to people's end of life wishes.

Prime Care Domiciliary Essex received referrals from people who required palliative care. The registered manager had engaged end of life training for staff to enhance their skills when supporting people at the end of their life. However, not all staff had completed end of life training as per the staff training matrix. This meant we cannot be assured staff were trained and skilled in supporting people safely with the relevant training required.

We recommend the provider seek and implement best practice guidance and training for staff on end-of-life care to ensure support plans are consistent, person-centred and respectful of people's wishes about would end of life care.