Purbeck Personal Assistants

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 is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment.

This service scored 66 (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 have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness. Staff did not always investigate safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had a policy and procedure in place to record accidents, incidents and learn from events that occurred within the service. However, they did not always follow this policy in practice. Staff recorded incidents, such as falls within the daily records, but actions taken following these events, for example to prevent a recurrence, were not always recorded. Staff told us they reported any concerns to the provider. However, the provider did not have oversight of accidents and incidents to help drive improvement and learn lessons. This meant people were at risk of avoidable harm.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Peoples’ needs were assessed prior to people receiving a service and a guide was in place to provide additional support for the transition. The provider made referrals and shared information with external professionals if required, for example, when they went to hospital. People and relatives did not express any concerns around how the service supported them with transitions between services.

The service did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. They did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to identify and report potential safeguarding concerns. Staff told us they felt able to raise safeguarding concerns. We identified 1 safeguarding concern had not been shared with the local authority safeguarding team. In response to our feedback, the provider made the referral retrospectively.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People told us they felt safe at home with the support of Purbeck Personal Assistants.

People had been assessed for risks and measures were in place to reduce the likelihood of harm. For example, around choking. We found risk assessments were reviewed regularly. Staff told us they would report any risks to the provider, and they would update the person’s care plan and inform staff. Relatives told us they were informed about any health concerns.

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 safe from risks within their environment. The provider assessed equipment that staff used to support people with their care, for example hoists. Staff had received training in how to use equipment safely. They told us they knew how to report any concerns, including when people’s needs had changed.

The provider did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

The provider could not be assured staff had the relevant skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. The provider had not always ensured staff were trained and their competency was checked, to ensure they were working safely. For example, not all staff had completed training for oral health, dementia, diabetes and pressure care. Checks to assess staff competency in relation to moving and handling and medicines management, were not in place. This meant there was a risk people may not receive safe and consistent support that met their needs.

There was a recruitment policy was in place; however, the provider did not always follow it. For example, only 1 reference was requested for staff, instead of 2. Recruitment records showed staff had an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff felt supported; however, the provider did not have a supervision policy in place to support practice.

People spoke positively about staff and told us they were supported by regular staff who knew them well.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People were protected from the risk of avoidable infections. Staff had received infection prevention and control training. This meant they knew the importance of working hygienically and keeping people and themselves safe by wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff had access to enough PPE to ensure they worked in accordance with the providers policy. People and their relatives told us their homes were left clean by staff.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

The provider had not always checked people’s medicines were managed safely; audits of medicines, to identify potential errors and shortfalls, were not in place. Additionally, the provider was not undertaking checks of staff practise to ensure they were competent to manage and administer medicines safely. This meant the provider could not be assured medicines were always managed safely and act to drive improvement. People told us they received their medicines as prescribed, their relatives agreed. The provider used an electronic system for recording medicine administration. Staff had clear direction for medicines administration, including body maps for cream application. Staff received medicines training.