Caring Personal Assistants Ltd - Head Office

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This service was previously registered at a different address. This is the first assessment for this service at this address. This key question has been rated outstanding. This meant people were protected by a strong and distinctive approach to safeguarding, including positive risk-taking to maximise their control over their lives. People were fully involved, and the provider was open and transparent when things went wrong.

This service scored 88 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider demonstrated a strong, proactive and positive safety culture characterised by openness, honesty and continuous learning. Staff actively listened to safety concerns, responded promptly and carried out thorough investigations that led to meaningful and sustained improvements. A deeply embedded ethos of learning rather than blame empowered staff at all levels to speak up with confidence. Staff told us they felt valued, heard and fully supported, and they understood how their feedback and incident reporting contributed to enhanced safety and better outcomes for people.

The provider’s electronic reporting system enabled immediate communication and oversight, allowing managers to review concerns quickly and implement timely and effective actions. Learning was shared widely and consistently embedded into everyday practice. The provider’s commitment to improvement was evident in both strategic oversight and frontline delivery, resulting in a service that continually evolved in response to feedback and evidence. This strong focus on learning and innovation fostered a culture where safety was prioritised at every level, contributing to outstanding outcomes for people.

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish, and maintain safe systems of care, where safety was consistently well managed and monitored. They always ensured continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider showed a clear commitment to person‑centred care from the outset. After receiving the initial referral, they quickly engaged with the person and, where appropriate, their family to get to know them and carry out a thorough assessment of their needs. Health and social care professionals involved in the person’s care were included in the process, ensuring a holistic approach that enabled the provider to plan the right support.

Following the assessment, the provider worked with the person and their family to agree a clear timeline for recruiting their support team.

A staff member told us that, before being recruited, applicants spent time with the person. This allowed the person to decide whether the applicant was the right fit for the role. This personalised planning, shared recruitment, and careful transition ensured consistent care, built trusting relationships, and placed the person at the centre of all decisions from the beginning.

The provider was aware of people’s needs before they moved into the service, so care and support were already in place and delivered safely. They maintained continuity of care by ensuring staff support teams had access to all relevant information about each person’s needs.

One person told us how the provider had supported them to move into their own home. The provider went above and beyond to ensure a smooth transition by working directly with the landlord to make sure all necessary adaptations were completed, making the home safe, accessible, and ready for their arrival. The person explained this move positively changed their relationship with their parents, allowing them to see them as parents rather than carers. Continuity of care was promoted consistently. For example, when people required a hospital stay, their regular support team, in agreement with hospital staff, maintained their usual support, providing familiar faces and consistent support. This approach significantly reduced anxiety and promoted emotional wellbeing during what could otherwise have been a distressing time.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how best to achieve this. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live safely and free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People consistently told us they received an excellent and safe service from caring personal assistants. One relative said, “I can’t rate them highly enough; they are fabulous.”

People were protected from abuse because staff knew how to respond to concerns about abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. There was a safeguarding policy in place, and this was followed by all staff. The manager was aware of their responsibilities under safeguarding and referrals had been made appropriately. Staff spoke confidently about reporting concerns to the management team and felt assured the registered manager and provider would act promptly. Staff understood whistleblowing and felt protected if they raised issues.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides the framework for making decisions on behalf of people who lacked capacity. It requires that people are supported to make their own decisions and any decisions made for them are in their best interests and least restrictive. When people receive care in their own homes, any deprivation of liberty requires authorisation from the Court of Protection.

People were encouraged to make their own decisions by staff who were trained and worked in line with the MCA. Staff sought consent from people. Care plans evidenced people had been included in their development and their consent was documented. Staff worked with families to make decisions in people's best interests. Staff recognised restrictions on people's liberty and appropriate action had been taken.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by taking a holistic approach. Staff delivered care that was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were supported to take positive risks that promoted independence. Staff used a creative and comprehensive approach to risk‑taking, ensuring risks were understood and managed safely. Risk assessments were completed with the person, their family, and, where necessary, health and social care professionals. This ensured a full and accurate understanding of each person’s individual risks.

The provider considered potential risks across all aspects of people’s lives. The registered manager explained that policies and procedures were in place to support risk management.

Staff clearly identified and assessed people’s needs and put measures in place to mitigate associated risks. When people’s needs changed, staff reassessed them promptly to ensure support remained safe and effective. Staff understood the importance of balancing safety with supporting people’s choice and control. When activities people enjoyed carried potential risks, these were assessed positively, and additional measures were introduced so people could continue them safely. This applied to everyday activities such as using local facilities as well as more complex plans, including holidays abroad.

People told us they felt risks were well managed without restricting their freedom. Those with health conditions, such as diabetes, received effective support to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. Staff followed best practice guidance, mitigated risks appropriately, and ensured people maintained independence and dignity. Where people were at risk of choking, staff completed assessments and made timely referrals to external specialists. For people at risk of falls or pressure wounds, staff assessed these risks, implemented appropriate measures, and ensured suitable equipment was provided.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People were supported in their own home and risks assessments were undertaken of each person's environment; this included a fire safety risk assessment. Equipment was in place to enable people to mobilise and receive personal care, for example, walking frames and shower chairs. Staff were trained in the use of equipment and received competency checks to ensure they were safely supporting people.

Staffing at the service was exceptionally well planned and managed to ensure people consistently received safe, reliable, and person‑centred care in their own homes. Leaders maintained excellent oversight of staffing levels and skill mix, ensuring people were supported by staff who understood their needs and were trained to deliver high‑quality care.

Safe recruitment practices were followed at all times. Robust pre‑employment checks were completed, and recruitment was values‑led, ensuring new staff aligned with the provider’s ethos and commitment to safe, person‑centred support. The service ensured staff were carefully selected and thoughtfully matched to the people they support, ensuring they possess not only had the necessary skills and competencies but also the values and personal qualities required to deliver high quality, person centred care.

All new staff received a comprehensive induction and role‑specific training that equipped them with the knowledge and confidence required for their role. They shadowed experienced staff until they were competent and until the person and their family were satisfied the staff member was able to support them independently. This approach ensured people felt safe and comfortable with those providing their day‑to‑day support.

Members of the senior care team undertook the same training as support staff, enabling them to monitor the quality and relevance of learning. Staff spoke very positively about the training they received and described how ongoing development supported them to improve the care they provided. One staff member said, “From my experience, they [Caring Personal Assistants] want you to make progress. They invest in staff training and see it as an opportunity to improve or enhance the service for the people using it and for the staff as well.” Staff told us they regularly received refresher training, ensuring their professional knowledge remained current and aligned with best practice.

People and relatives consistently praised staff competence, reliability, and professionalism. One person told us, “I have been supported by the company for 4 to 5 years, and during this time the quality of care and the attitude of the staff have been consistently outstanding. I have never experienced a missed call, and the carers actively support me to remain physically active, including swimming, walking and skiing.” Another person said, “I feel as if my staff possess appropriate and sufficient knowledge to provide me with the support I require.”

A stable and supportive staff team operated across the service, contributing to continuity of care and strong, trusting relationships with people. Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals, and they were offered opportunities for professional development and progression into senior roles. This investment in staff capability meant people were consistently supported by a confident, well‑trained, and motivated workforce.

The provider assessed and managed infection risks, controlled the spread of infection, and shared concerns promptly with the appropriate agencies.Effective systems and procedures supported safe infection prevention and control (IPC). Staff had access to policies, received training, and were monitored through spot checks to ensure safe practice. Relatives told us staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) and kept homes clean and tidy.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were administered and stored safely. Staff received training and competency assessments prior to administering medicines to people. Some people were prescribed medicines on an ‘as and when’ required basis, often referred to as PRN. Protocols were in place to help make sure people received their PRN medicines appropriately. One person said, "They [staff] remind me to take my medication.”