Team Personnel Solutions Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Initial care assessments were robust and person-centred. Formal reviews were carried out quarterly (or sooner if needed), to ensure the care continued to be appropriate to their needs.
A relative said, “[Person] was in hospital for three months and the discharge nurse set up the plan with us. Team Personnel Solutions came and met my relative on the ward and made sure there was a smooth transition.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care records were person-centred. People were involved in planning their care and support. Where people were not able to share their preferences themselves, family or advocates and other health and social care professionals were included in decisions. Records showed that people were receiving care in line with their assessments.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The registered manager held regular meetings with staff sharing key information. Staff said management were approachable. A staff member said, “We work together as a team by adhering to the agreed way of working, listening to one another and ensuring that any concerns with our clients are properly passed to the next team.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed to. Staff were trained to carry out some delegated healthcare tasks. This supported people to live in their own homes and reduced the need for visits from other healthcare professionals.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Records showed that people and their advocates were asked for feedback regularly. Care records were reviewed quarterly, unless people’s circumstances changed sooner. Staff acted on advice from health and social care professionals.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA. The registered manager had processes in place should best interests decisions be required.