Princess Homecare

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

We reviewed 5 quality statements for this key question. Processes were poor and information lacked detail. Staff had daily contact with leaders and records showed when formal staff supervision had taken place. Staff had worked at the service for many years and knew people well. They promoted independence. People were complimentary about the staff and their support.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the staff. They said they were kind, caring and understanding.

Feedback from staff about the way in which leaders spoke about people was mixed. Not all ensured compassion, dignity, or an understanding of the person’s health condition. However, leaders told us privacy and dignity were important and practiced at all times. They gave examples of promoting such rights and said any information about people was kept securely. Staff told they naturally treated people with care and compassion. This included always treating people as they would like to be treated, or how they would treat their own family.

One health care professional told us they had always seen staff to be very supportive and caring towards people.

People told us staff knew them well as they had been supporting them for many years. Relatives confirmed this. They said they knew their family member’s preferences and how they liked their care to be delivered. They said their family member enjoyed staff sharing any updates regarding the local community.

Leaders told us did what people wanted and enabled them to follow their interests. They said they communicated with people well and used body language, as well as verbal speech. Staff told us they recognised people’s individuality and supported each person accordingly. They said they loved the one-to-one work with people, and always went the extra mile to enable a positive experience.

Care planning gave staff limited information about the person’s individuality, preferences or how they liked their care to be delivered. There was no information about people’s communication needs. This did not provide staff with guidance about how to best support the person. The content within daily records was similar each day and lacked detail to show individuality. This included repeated phrases on people’s records such as ‘Person was positive and chatty’. This did not give an accurate portrayal of the person’s wellbeing and meant there was a risk any ill health would not be identified or addressed.

People and their relatives told us staff encouraged independence, as the service enabled them to stay in their own home. They said staff encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves. People and their relatives were complimentary about the staff and said their rights to dignity and respect were promoted.

The feedback we received about independence, choice and control was conflicting. Staff told us they promoted people’s rights as standard practice. However, they said some people felt they had to listen to what leaders told them, so did not feel able to make their own decisions. This was restrictive practice, and not acceptable. Leaders told us staff knew people well, so were aware of their preferences. They said people’s care was all about the person, so they enabled choice at all times.

People and their relatives were involved in care planning. Within the care plan, dignity, choice and wellbeing without prejudice or discrimination was stated, but it was not clear what this meant in practice. Independence was identified in one plan as the person liked to do as much as they could for themselves. All care plans had been reviewed and were up to date.

People and their relatives told us staff were reliable and always arrived on time. They said they knew what was needed so supported people well.

We received conflicting feedback about the timeliness of gaining medical support when people were unwell. Staff told us once identifying any ill health, the procedure was to notify leaders for them to assess the situation. This caused a delay in calling the emergency services, which impacted on wellbeing. Leaders however, told us they provided a 24 hour on call system, which meant they would respond to a person at any time of need. They said they could address any small environmental issues themselves, but also had a list of contractors who could help in an emergency.

There was conflicting feedback about workforce wellbeing. Staff told us they gained support from each other but did not always feel supported by leaders, which was at times difficult. However, leaders told us they looked after the staff and adjusted their hours to consider any appointments or caring responsibilities. They said the majority of staff had worked at the service for over 20 years.

Processes were not always effective. Dates documented in staff personnel files demonstrated structured supervision of staff took place. However, this conflicted with what leaders and staff told us. Leaders also spoke to staff informally on a daily basis, but this was not documented. This did not provide evidence staff were fully supported, or their wellbeing was ensured.