About the service: Penrose Care Ltd is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to older people in their own homes in and around North London. People receiving a service included those with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, acquired brain injuries and health issues relating to the progression of age. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 16 people out of which nine people received the regulated activity of personal care.People’s experience of using this service:
The agency provided exceptionally good care to people who used it. All stakeholders we spoke with, including people using the service, their family members and external health and social care professionals gave consistently positive feedback about the agency. They thought the agency was very well run and was very responsive to people’s needs. They described staff as very skilful and having an exceptional level of commitment to supporting people and facilitating their improvement.
Staff were exceedingly committed to providing best support to people. Therefore, people’s wellbeing and activity levels had been noticeably improved. Staff were consistently commended for their kindness, patience and professionalism. Staff provided empathetic care and adapted this to meet the rapidly changing needs of people.
Staff knew people well. Without exertion staff supported people in enhancing their lives so people felt valued, empowered and fully included in their care. Staff continuously involved people in making decisions about their care and supported them to have their voice heard. With staff thoughtful support, people could participate in the community events, socialise, follow their hobbies, travel and lead independent lives as much as possible. Feedback from various stakeholders clearly attributed people’s improved wellbeing to staff support, encouragement and commitment. They thought, because of staff support, that people were achieving better than expected outcomes and they could live the best life possible with their health conditions.
Motivation to meet people’s needs well was at the heart of the agency’s exceptional performance. The agency worked closely with other professionals to develop bespoke care packages for each person using the service. This helped to ensure the care and support provided to people suited their often very complex and highly demanding needs. People’s care plans had comprehensive information related to care needs and how care should be provided. People, relatives and external professionals thought the agency was very flexible in their approach and could provide high quality additional support even at short notice.
Staff received regular mandatory and additional training to ensure they had sufficient skills and experience to support people in a safe and effective way. Regular supervision, appraisal and managerial spot checks ensured that staff were appropriately supported and that they provided care in the way that matched people’s needs.
The agency provided safe care. People told us they felt very safe with staff who supported them. There were effective safeguarding systems in place that helped to protect people from harm. Appropriate recruitment practice protected people from unsuitable staff.
An ongoing risk assessment and management process helped to minimise the occurrence of and effects of risks relating to people’s health, activities and environment. This included places people visited. People received their medicines as prescribed. There were robust procedures in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.
There were sufficient staff deployed to support people. People said staff were always on time and they never missed a planned visit. People and relatives were confident care would be provided as planned.
People were supported to have enough food and drinks and have a balanced diet that matched their needs and preferences.
The agency was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff supported people in making decisions about their everyday care and they ensured people were asked for their consent before this care was provided.
Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy when providing personal care.
The service was an integral part of the community and was involved in various community events and actions aiming at improving understanding the needs of people using the service and improving their life in the community.
People were encouraged to give feedback about the service provided. This could be done via the complaints procedure, regular care reviews of direct contact with the staff and the management team. Feedback received had been taken into consideration and appropriate action had been taken to address issues occurring.
The agency had a clear managerial structure and individual work roles were clearly defined and allocated. All employees were provided with guidelines on what their responsibilities and accountabilities were.
Staff felt supported by their managers. They could contact the management team at any time about any work issues and they were confident they would be assisted. Staff were invited to regular team meetings where they could share ideas and experience. Staff thought their contribution was valued.
The agency was committed to continuous learning and improving care. Proactive action had been taken by the management team when things went wrong and where the service provided needed to improve.
The agency worked in close partnership with the local community and external care and social care professionals. Feedback received from the professionals suggested that they were impressed with care provided by the agency and they would not hesitate to recommend it to others.
Rating at last inspection: Good (last report published on 23 August 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the agency and we will revisit it in the future to check if they continue to provide good quality of care to people who use it.