You are here

The Personal Support Network (Teesside) Limited Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 21 March 2019

This inspection took place on 23, 24, 29 and 31 January 2019 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office to assist with the inspection.

The service was last inspected in February 2018. At that time, we identified a breach of our regulations in relation to medicines management, risk assessments and good governance processes. We took action by requiring the provider to send us action plans setting out how they would improve in these areas.

When we returned for this latest inspection we saw that that improvements had been made in relation to risk assessments. However, we found that medicines were still not managed safely. The provider’s quality assurance processes had not identified these issues. These were a continuing breach of our regulations.

This is the third time the service has been rated requires improvement.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community It provides a service to older adults, people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders and people with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection 73 people were receiving personal care from the service.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was also one of the owners and registered providers of the service.

Risk assessments had improved but further and sustained improvement was needed. Accidents and incidents were monitored to see if lessons could be learned and action taken to improve people’s safely. People were safeguarded from abuse. Policies and procedures were in place to promote good practice in infection control. Plans were in place to support people in emergency situations that disrupted the service. The registered manager and provider ensured sufficient staff were deployed to provide safe support. The provider’s recruitment policies minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

People's health and social needs were assessed to ensure the service could provide effective support. Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals to maintain and promote people’s health and wellbeing. Staff were supported with training, supervisions and appraisals. People were supported with managing food and nutrition as part of their support package. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this.

People and relatives spoke positively about the support they received. People were treated with dignity and respect. People said they were empowered by the support they received and had used this to improve their overall quality of life. Policies and procedures were in place to support people to access advocacy services.

People received personalised support based on their assessed needs and preferences. The provider had systems in place to ensure information was accessible to people. The provider supported people to access activities they enjoyed. Policies and procedures were in place to investigate and respond to complaints.

Staff spoke positively about the culture and values of the service and the leadership provided by the registered manager and provider. The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken. Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff and was acted on.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 21 March 2019

The service was not always safe.

Medicines were not managed safely.

Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse.

Recruitment procedures were in place to minimise the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 March 2019

The service was effective.

Staff were supported through regular training, supervisions and appraisals.

People's rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were protected.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and to access external professionals to maintain and promote their health.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 March 2019

The service was caring.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support they received.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and promoted their independence.

Procedures were in place to support people to access advocacy services where needed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 March 2019

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care based on their support needs and preferences.

People were supported to access activities they enjoyed.

Policies and procedures were in place to respond to and learn from complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 21 March 2019

The service was not always well-led.

The provider's quality assurances processes had not identified the issues we found at this latest inspection.

Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff.

Staff said they felt supported in their roles and valued as members of a team.