Princess Homecare

“At this inspection, a new financial transaction system had been implemented to demonstrate any shopping the provider did for a person. However, the required processes had not always been followed, and not all expenditure had been accounted for. This did not ensure the system was effective in minimising the risk of financial abuse.”

“The provider did not have a policy for recruiting volunteers and safe recruitment practice was not being followed. This did not ensure the most recent member of the team was safe to be at the service.”

“The provider could not accurately describe the main principles of safeguarding and did not demonstrate an objective approach to the management of complaints. The provider had not completed safeguarding training for managers as agreed at the last inspection. This did not ensure any safeguarding or poor practice were appropriately identified or addressed. Records did not demonstrate consent to care and treatment was always sought in line with legislation or their own policy. This did not ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests.”

“An action plan following the last inspection had been developed. However, the provider could not discuss the actions taken so far or what else was needed to develop the service further. This demonstrated the provider was not proactive and did not have the knowledge to implement the changes required.”

“The provider told us people were happy with the service they received. However, there was not a formal system to gain people’s views. This did not ensure people’s feedback was used to direct the development of the service.”

“Staff told us the culture of the service had improved, and the provider was now more open and empowering. There continued to be a very small staff team which enabled consistency of care and staff to know people well.”

“The provider told us there were enough staff to support existing care packages. Staff training had been reinstated, and a range of subjects had been completed. The provider continued to speak to staff daily, and a more formal supervision system was followed. However, this included staff supervising the providers, which did not ensure objective feedback.”

“Risks people faced had been identified and records showed the action required to minimize harm. Additional detail had been added to care planning and people’s needs and wishes were stated. Improvements had been made to ensure the safe management of people’s medicines. This included clearer instructions for the administration of medicines and topical creams.”