Archived: Prestige Nursing Staffordshire

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection, in December 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People continued to receive care which protected them from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff supported people's needs in a safe way, monitored risks to their safety and were available when people needed support. People's medicines were managed in a safe way and they had their medicines when they needed them.

Staff received training to give them the skills and knowledge they needed to meet people's needs. These skills were kept up to date through regular training and staff were supported in their roles by managers and their colleagues.

Staff asked people's permission before they helped them with any care or support. People's right to make their own decisions about their own care and treatment were supported by staff.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and had good relationships with them. People felt involved in their own care and staff and managers listened to what they wanted. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity when they supported them. People received care and support that was individual to them.

People's support needs were kept under review and staff responded when there were changes in these needs. People had opportunities to give feedback and make complaints about the care and support they received. They also had opportunities to make suggestions for improvements at the service and these were listened to.

People felt confident to express themselves and felt comfortable to speak with staff and managers about concerns and issues that affected them. The provider had systems in place that continued to be effective in assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

There were approximately 50 people using the service at the time of the inspection. We spoke with nine people using the service or their relatives by telephone.

People’s needs were assessed before care was delivered. This should ensure the provider could meet people's individual needs.

People using the service did not receive regular carers and were not always happy with the times of their calls. One person told us, “Even though we have a carer named on a rota we get someone entirely different when they knock on the door. Sometimes it can be once, twice or three times a week.”

We were informed people were treated with care and compassion and the staff responded well to their needs. One person said, “The carers are professional. Our carer is very, very good.”

Staff received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal. People using the service and staff told us there was sufficient training to ensure that people’s needs were understood and met.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, but people told us their complaints were not responded to. The majority of the people we spoke with were not satisfied with the way their care was arranged.

We found that record keeping and documentation was detailed and thorough with person centred care plans in place for people.

All the people spoken to said that the staff were very good and reliable. One person said ''My carers are wonderful and trustworthy, I tell them what I want them to do and they do it''. The relatives told us that they had concerns about carers being late for visits but that they are always informed by the office when a carer is delayed.

The manager of the service was not at the office during the inspection so we spoke to the senior person in charge and spoke to them about the quality monitoring systems in place. We saw that the service benefited from quality visits, telephone checks and spot checks to people using the service.