Pramacare

People's experience of using this service and what we found: Everyone we spoke with provided exceptional feedback about how caring and supportive the staff were and so often went the extra mile to ensure people were happy and felt well cared for.

We found overwhelming evidence of the positive impact the service had on people's lives. This was due to positive culture created by the registered provider and registered manager.

The providers values of compassion, helpfulness, respect, integrity, sensitivity and trust were embedded in the culture of the service and reflected in all areas of the service, especially from the staff and feedback from people confirmed this.

The registered provider and registered manager continually reviewed the service and sought ways to improve the service to benefit both the people receiving the service and staff. They had built strong relationships with relevant professionals and within the local community to promote learning and meeting people's needs. They had introduced innovative projects to improve people's overall wellbeing and care as well as try to reduce social isolation and loneliness.

People received personalised care which was responsive to their individual needs. Staff had an excellent understanding of the care and support people needed and provided this with great care and understanding.

People told us they felt listened to and consulted when planning and agreeing what care and support they needed.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their role in identifying and reporting any concerns of potential abuse or poor practice.

Risks to people were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff understood the actions needed to minimise the risk of avoidable harm including the prevention of avoidable infection.

Staff supported people to take medicines safely. Staff were trained in medicines management and knew how to ensure that people received their medicines on time and as they had been prescribed.

There were sufficient numbers of trained, experienced staff to meet people's needs. Safe recruitment practices were followed, and appropriate checks completed to ensure that only suitable staff were employed.

Four people were concerned that staff worked long hours and did not always have sufficient time to travel between calls. They said this did not affect the standard of care they received. Three staff also told us that scheduling of calls could be improved. However, the majority of staff reported that schedules were satisfactory, and they were listened to if they raised an issue with travel times or the schedule. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff received induction and on-going training and support that enabled them to carry out their roles positively and effectively.

People had access to healthcare services and were involved in decisions about their care wellbeing. Partnerships with other agencies and health professionals enabled effective outcomes for people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People and where appropriate their relatives were involved in decisions about their care.

People, relatives and professionals told us they could confidently raise any concerns, and these were addressed appropriately.

Governance systems and oversight of the service were robust. Issues were identified, and actions taken to address any shortfalls.