Purbeck Personal Assistants

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 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 67 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service, which formed the basis of care plans. People and their relatives told us they were involved in planning their care. Care plans were updated when changes occurred, however, people were not always involved in the review of their care.

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.

The provider requested support from healthcare professionals, such as district nurses, for people’s skin integrity, when they were at risk of skin breakdown.

People were supported where required with their hydration and nutritional needs. One person said, “They get me a light meal for breakfast and a light lunch and then a substantial meal in the evening. I have what I want. They make sure I have plenty to drink.”

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.

People were supported by staff who communicated effectively with external professionals and shared relevant information when needed.

Communication with healthcare professionals was documented. Staff told us they worked closely with healthcare professionals, such as district nurses and occupational therapists. A staff member told us they had called a GP to arrange an urgent home visit for a person.

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 with referrals to healthcare professionals when required. The provider had a system in place to record their communication with health and social care professionals. Care plans contained information about people’s health and their wishes in the event emergency care was required. Relatives told us that people are encouraged to be an independent as they can. One relative told us, “They are very encouraging and supportive in order to keep my relative as mobile as they can. They are very proactive.”

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.

The provider worked closely with healthcare professionals and staff monitored people’s health conditions to ensure positive outcomes for people. Staff told us they recorded their findings when monitoring people’s health conditions and reported any concerns to the provider. Relatives told us staff monitored health conditions effectively. One relative told us, “They will pass on [information], make sure she doesn’t have any bed sores, ask me to keep an eye on whether she is drinking enough, make sure there’s nothing untoward. They are on top of that.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

There was a mental capacity policy in place, however it did not provide staff with up-to-date best practice guidance. For example, it did not include details of assessing capacity and the best interest decision making process. Most staff had completed mental capacity training. However, the provider did not understand their responsibilities under the MCA and had not always completed assessments as required.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are supported to do so when needed. Where a person lacks capacity to make specific decisions, any made on their behalf must be the least restrictive and in their best interests.

Relatives told us staff asked people for their consent and explain what is happening and why.