Persona Domiciliary Support Service

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 have clear or accurate plans that included people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs.

We reviewed 5 people’s care plans and found issues in 3 of these. Issues included information that was not always thorough enough, was poorly recorded or was not actioned. One person’s care plan had several shortfalls impacting on both quality and safety, and these had not been picked up in care plan reviews. The provider was responsive to feedback and made changes during the assessment. We could not be assured all care plans had been reviewed in line with the provider’s policy as these shortfalls had not been identified.

Most staff told us plans were up to date and easy to follow. A staff member with responsibility for updating plans told us, “I won’t update anything if it’s out of date just to meet a deadline, that doesn’t happen, we update when we have all the info.”

Plans were currently being transferred from paper to electronic records. We were assured this would be completed by trained staff who knew people well.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The delivery of care and treatment did not always follow guidelines and best practice. A Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) assessment was not clearly reflected in a care plan and not always followed by staff, this put a person at risk. Therapy plans, and health monitoring records were not always adhered to, and/or recorded accurately. The provider responded immediately to the concerns we raised and took action to ensure plans, and monitoring systems were in place and followed by staff

Managers 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.

Most of the staff told us they had good teams and good managers. Comments included, “I’m just happy where I am now. I get on with my manager and the staff, love the clients. I can’t criticize anyone I work with”, “There’s no negatives, but lots of positives. That’s why I am still here” and “I’m really happy here. It has only been (time period), I am still learning but from what I’ve been through, I’ve had a great experience, manager and staff are great”.

Managers knew the people they supported well and had close links with other organisations. This allowed them to consider people for different services that could better suit their changing needs. Teams made efforts to know the people they supported, they had time to read care plans and share information. Such discussions had led to one manager being able to identify a property which could be a ‘dream location’ for one person.

We saw examples of the provider working well with services to advocate for people and to request a reassessment of needs. There were numerous examples of attendance at multi agency meetings with people and professionals, and this helped provide a more holistic approach.

Staff shared information with each other to ensure continuity of care and the methods used were usually effective.

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.

Families told us that their relatives were supported with attendance at health appointments when required. People were referred to healthcare services when required and health professionals attended meetings to discuss people care.

Relatives told us their loved one was supported to make healthier lifestyle choices and encouraged and supported to participate in activities they were interested in.

Case studies highlighted the positive impact on people’s wellbeing following changes in their lifestyle with support from Persona. These also evidenced where people had been supported to eat and cook healthy meals, lost weight and increased their exercise tolerance which had improved their general health and wellbeing.

One family did raise concerns and told us they were not informed their relative was in hospital, they had concerns about their relative’s diet and weight and agency staff giving medication when not required.

The provider did not always routinely record how they monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were consistent, or that they met the expectations of people themselves.

People wishes and aspirations were discussed during their assessments and reviews, and this was recorded for some people. It was not clear if all people had the same opportunity to express and have their wishes and aspirations explored, as this was not routinely recorded. The provider advised us this was an area they had identified. They had existing plans in place to formalise discussions, recordings and monitoring of personalised goals and outcomes. They had a target to ensure all people had a minimum of 2 outcomes in place by the end of January 2026.

The provider, people and their families shared good examples of people being supported to gain new skills and experiences which have increased their wellbeing, confidence and independence. There were many examples of this including gaining employment, increased independence, new activities and interests, cooking, exercise, socialising, holidays, making friends and travelling. Staff who know the person well could talk extensively about what people wanted and how they and the team were supporting them to make positive change. However, they were unable to specify where this information was recorded or how it was measured or monitored.

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

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions had been made in their best interests in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) by those acting on their behalf. MCA assessments were completed; however, some were not specific enough and needed updating during the assessment. Best interest decisions were in place when people could not consent to measures taken to keep them safe.

Staff understood people’s rights and the balance of needs and risks. Staff understood who made decisions for people where necessary and where to find this information.

Staff spoke with confidence about understanding people’s communication styles and utilised strategies to aid discussions around consent. All staff were able to identify what to escalate and when for people who continued to decline support.