Prime Care Associates

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

There was a risk management format in place, but this did not always identify and mitigate the individualised risks people faced. Lack of guidance for staff to manage risks safely was also identified at the last three inspections in 2019, 2018 and 2017.

People's medicines were not always safely managed. Staff had not documented the time they had assisted a person with their pain relief. This increased the risk of it being given again before the required four hour gap between doses. Some medicine administration records showed handwritten changes to the dosage and timing of the prescription details, without the staff's signature or countersignature.

There was a quality auditing system in place, but it was not fully effective, as shortfalls found during this inspection had not been identified. This included shortfalls in risk management, care planning and the inconsistency in timing and duration of people's visits.

Systems were in place to minimise the risk of people experiencing abuse. Staff told us they completed safeguarding training and would report any concerns about people's wellbeing to the care manager.

People told us they felt safe with staff supporting them. They said staff wore the required personal protective equipment, to minimise the risk of transmitting COVID-19. The care manager gained regular updated government guidance about working safely within the pandemic. This was disseminated to the staff team as required. Staff took part in a regular testing regime to detect if they had the virus at an early stage. This minimised the risk of transmission.

There were enough staff to support existing care packages. The care manager was not accepting any new care packages to avoid staff being spread too thinly. People were supported by a stable staff team, who knew them well. New staff were recruited safely to ensure they were appropriate to work with vulnerable

people.

The agency provided end of life care, if needed, to those already being supported.

People and their relatives knew how to make a formal complaint but had not needed to or done so. Two concerns had been raised with CQC just before and at the time of the inspection. The care manager had not substantiated the first concern, and we found there was no evidence to support the second.

The service had a supportive ethos and a clear desire to provide good quality care. Systems were in place to enable people, their relatives and staff to give their views about the service. The care manager told us they worked closely with other agencies such as the GP and community nurses.