Prudent Domiciliary Care Limited (PBG)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

The provider did not recognise their processes and ways they managed people’s care delivery meant people were not always treated in a caring way and enabled to be in control of their care, how this was planned and delivered throughout the day. The provider’s processes did not always consult people to include their preferences as to timings of their care and their specific requests as far as possible. Staff were not fully enabled to provide care in a way which promoted people’s independence, choice and control.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People told us the issues with care visits planning, delays and inconsistencies in staffing made them feel that they did not have control or choice around their own care. For example, one relative told us the person had a particular preference around carers who visited them due to dignity and privacy matters important to them. The provider told us they were not able to meet this request as it was not voiced at the point of the needs assessment. However, there was no evidence of the provider trying to resolve the issue and propose any available solutions whilst they were recruiting new staff to be able to honour the person’s request. This was despite the issue being raised several times in the care notes by the staff visiting the person. A relative told us, “The problem is never knowing when they are going to turn up.” People told us this affected their days, ability to plan other activities and to feel comfortable as they were sometimes waiting for care for extended periods of time.

Staff were not always enabled to ensure people’s support was provided in a way which suited people’s preferences and gave them control over their care. One staff member commented, “I end up being later. I feel rushed.”

The provider did not always seek to empower people to voice their preferences and choices and to find solutions which would support people’s independence and choice. Care plans were person-centred, but not followed in practice. The arrangements around timings and provision of people’s care were not always promoting people’s rights and quality of their individual care. Instead, rosters were planned in a way that enabled the service to staff all care visits. Although improvements were being made to how this was planned and managed, there was limited assurance around how people’s wishes, individual preferences and choices were discussed with them or addressed in making those changes. This impacted on people’s wellbeing and quality of life which we addressed in the staffing quality statement in safe.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.