Purbeck Personal Assistants

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 57 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture.

The provider and staff knew people well and were supported by regular staff team. Staff told us they support people with person centred care and worked regularly with professionals. A staff member said, “As a company, we try to encourage people to make their own choices, like what they want to eat or wear that day. We try to empower people by promoting independence.”

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

The provider had failed to identify governance processes were not always in place to identify errors, shortfalls and omissions in relation to care quality and safety. The provider told us they had struggled with their time management as they also covered care calls. The provider made themselves available to staff. They were visible; they completed initial assessments and provided support to people. Staff told us they could approach the provider. A staff member said, “I feel the provider is approachable, and I am comfortable talking to them.”

The registered manager said they joined provider forums to stay up to date with changes in policy. The provider had completed their care management qualification.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People and their relatives told us they would speak to the provider about any concerns and felt comfortable doing so. A freedom to speak up policy was in place. Staff told us they could speak to management about concerns, and they would be listened to.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Staff were valued by the provider. Staff did not express any concerns about their own treatment or that of others. The registered manager told us they had directed a staff member to the welfare service available to them and if any reasonable adjustments were required by staff this would be implemented.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems were either not in place or operating effectively for provider to have oversight of the service, and therefore they had not identified the shortfalls found at this inspection. For example, the process for recording and reporting accidents and incidents was not established and not effective. Systems and processes were not in place to enable the provider to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. For example, the provider did not review accidents and incidents. Checks were not in place to enable the provider to monitor the service. For example, medicines and care plan audits. This meant they had not been able to identify any trends or themes and drive improvements within the service.

Policies and procedures within the service did not always contain enough information to provide staff with directions about how they should respond to potential safeguarding concerns. The provider had failed to identify they had not submitted 1 statutory notifications to CQC as required by law. The provider did not ensure staff had the required training and competency checks to provide safe care. The provider had failed to identify staff were not always being supported to access training relevant to the needs of people, for example in relation to dementia and diabetes care. The provider could not be assured medicines were managed safely as they had failed to implement a process to assess the medicines competency of staff. There was an additional failure to audit medicines, to identify errors and shortfalls with a view to driving improvement and preventing a recurrence. This placed people at risk of avoidable harm.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider worked in partnership with healthcare professionals to improve outcomes for people. Communication with healthcare professionals was clearly recorded. Health and social care professionals did not express any concerns in working with the service.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Quality assurance processes and systems were not in place. This meant potential risks to people could not always be identified and lessons were not always learned to prevent reoccurrence. Opportunities to drive improvements within the service had been missed. The provider told us they had not kept their service action plan up to date. However, following our feedback, they told us they would create an action plan to include the areas.