• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Prestige Nursing (Bristol)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

44 & 47 Montpelier Court, Station Road, Montpelier, Bristol, BS6 5EA (0117) 923 2222

Provided and run by:
Robert Sage Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

1 December 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection was announced and took place on 1 and 5 December 2017. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. We did this to ensure key staff would be available at the service. At the time of the inspection 40 people were receiving a nursing and personal care service from Prestige. It provided a service to children, disabled people, younger and older adults. Many people using the service had significant and ongoing healthcare needs.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff knew the signs of abuse and were confident to raise any concerns they had with the registered manager and provider. People and their representatives told us they were confident to raise any concerns they had with staff and that any concerns they had raised had been acted on. People had individual risk assessments so that staff had the information they needed to support them safely and minimise the identified risks.

People's medicines were being managed safely and administered by trained staff. Medicine administration records contained updated guidance to staff and were fully completed. Changes in people's health were identified quickly and staff supported people and their relatives to contact their health care professionals.

People spoke highly of the staff that provided their care and people’s relatives were also complimentary of staff. Staff we spoke with demonstrated they were aware of people’s individual needs and understood their preferences.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and protected them from harm. The service carried out pre-employment checks on staff before they worked with people to assess their suitability.

Staff received regular supervision to discuss their progress and training needs. Spot checks were completed by senior staff to monitor staff performance and ensure people were receiving support in line with their needs and expectations.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people and acted in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager knew when assessments of people's capacity to make decisions were needed. Staff assumed people had capacity and respected the decisions they made.

People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect at all times. Staff were kind, caring and supported people if they became anxious. People who wished to were supported to develop their independence. Staff supported people to take part in leisure activities they liked.

People who used the service were provided with personalised care, which was based on their individual needs, wishes and goals. People were fully involved in the development of their care plans and felt their views and opinions about how their care was provided were encouraged. Care records were reviewed with people and they had been provided with sufficient information about the service. The service had had an effective system in place to manage complaints.

People received a service that was well led because the registered manager provided good leadership and management. Systems were in place to check on the standards within the service.

The registered manager had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received. Quality assurance systems involved people who used the service.

9 and 14 January 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection of Prestige Nursing took place on 9 and 14 January 2015 and was announced. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the manager is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

Prestige Nursing (Bristol) provides nursing and personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 41 people were receiving nursing and personal care service.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirement of the law; as does the provider.

People were well supported in their home and were kept free from harm and felt safe and happy. People told us that staff always made sure that they locked the door when they left their house to make sure they were safe. One relative told us “he is 100% safe and I know when they go out they are in good hands”.

There were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to support the people who used the service. People and their relatives told us they were supported by regular staff who knew their needs and preferences well. One person said, “I am satisfied with the carers I have got”. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

Systems were in place to ensure that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. The registered manager and staff were aware of procedures to follow to safeguard people from abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse.

People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and were kept informed. Family and friends’ views about how well they were involved in decisions were all positive. Relatives we spoke with told us they were always consulted and felt involved.

Care files had details of people’s GPs so staff could contact them if they had a health concerns. Care plans were written in a personalised way based on the needs of the person concerned.

People were offered support in a way that upheld their dignity and promoted their independence. One relative told us that when staff helped with personal care they would close doors and curtains and make sure the person was covered.

People were supported at mealtimes to have food and drink of their choice. One staff member told us “I always check what the person wants before preparing dinner or tea for them.

People’s right were being upheld as required by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. This is a law that provides a framework to protect people who do not have mental capacity to give their consent or make certain decisions for themselves. Staff were aware of their responsibilities through appropriate training in regards to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were cared for by kind, respectful staff. People told us they looked forward to staff coming to support them.

Medicines were safely administered and people who used the service received their medicines in the way that had been prescribed for them. Each care file had clear instructions to care staff stating whether the person was to be administered medication as part of the care plan. However we saw that there were some discrepancies in the medicines administration records on three files we looked at. We discussed these with the registered manager who then remedied this during the inspection.

Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. There were regular and detailed care plan reviews undertaken by senior staff which involved all interested parties which were signed and agreed. A number of audits were routinely undertaken, these included a quality audit review of care files, review of handover sheets, accident and incidents and medication records This helped the provider to make improvements where necessary.

17 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the agency and their relatives who we spoke with, told us they were satisfied with the care and support that was provided. We were told that staff were friendly and polite. People said that staff were punctual, wore their uniforms and provided identification.

People were provided with sufficient information about the services the agency provided and also how to raise a concern or report an issue. We spoke with four people who use the agency who told us they had copies of their care plans and they explained how they were involved in reviewing and changing the content if they needed to. They also told us they were confident that they knew how to make a complaint.

We spoke with three relatives and all said they were satisfied with the approach of the staff and that they had been involved or consulted in the planning of care. We found that staff received regular training and that they felt they were well supported by the managers and senior staff. We found that regular spot checks were completed by senior staff and that the views of the people using the service and relatives were regularly sought.

People described the service they received as, "brilliant", "they put themselves out", " the staff and management are friendly and have a lovely attitude". Relatives said, " They meet my relative's needs well ", "I know how to make a complaint but I know that I can discuss anything with the manager and they try to put things right".

11 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who used the service three relatives, ten staff members, the provider and the acting manager. People who used the service told us staff did things in the way they liked things done. One person told us "I am happy with my care. I like the staff they always do things for me the way I like it done".

People told us staff always respected their privacy and treated them with respect.They told us they felt able to raise any issues with the manager or staff should they have any concerns.

Staff told us about the training the service had arranged for them so they would recognise abuse and how to report it.

People's relatives told us that staff were always friendly and professional when they visited. One person said 'they are brilliant always on time. Another person told us "they are very caring I get on well with all of them".

Relatives confirmed staff took time to explain what was happening and made sure they agreed with any changes to the care needs of their family member. They were very pleased with the service provided. One relative said: "We are very pleased with Prestige. We have meeting with the agency once a month to discuss my relative's care needs. I find it really helpful'.

Another relative said: "staff are very caring and polite they go the extra mile to support my relative I couldn't find a single thing to complain about they are really good'.

We found the provider had systems in place to monitor their own compliance.

.

28 June 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited the agency on 14 July 2011 as a part of this compliance review.

People who use services told us that they were very happy with the support they were receiving. They said that staff were very respectful and treated them with respect. People told us they were involved in developing their care plan.

People told us they felt safe in their houses and were comfortable around staff who supported them. They said if they had any concerns they would let the agency know. One person said "if I did not get on well with any staff the agency will sort it for me. I am happy"

People said that staff were good. They were confident that staff had been appropriately trained. One person said "Staff are all good .I am satisfied with the service I am receiving.

People told us that they were supported to make a complaint and were confident that they would be listened to. We spoke to one relative who said they were satisfied with the services provided by the agency and that they had no complaints.