Archived: Personal Assist South Yorkshire Also known as 1-5103752706

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Some daily care logs did not promote compassion and dignity for people. We found staff had completed daily records for 1 person, which contained staff's personal views and did not promote person centred care and treatment. People and relatives told us most staff were kind and caring and respected their privacy and dignity. A person said, “Staff are kind and caring. They make me laugh when I am down.” And a relative said, “Staff are kind and caring. The carers love [name]. They respect our privacy. They ring the bell when they come in and shout they are here. New carers will introduce themselves.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. We received mixed feedback from people about staff's knowledge about their needs and wishes. A person told us, “Some staff don’t know what I like.” Whilst a relative said, “Staff know [name’s] needs, they meet our expectations.” Where people exhibited behaviors of distress, robust records were not always in place, which would allow for monitoring and learning. People attended church services, and 1 person was supported to attend sports tournaments they liked to attend.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff understood their responsibilities to promote people's independence and enable people to make choices. One person was involved in formulating their own shopping lists and supported to go shopping to obtain their food of choice. People had 'emotions' cards in place, to assist them to tell staff how they were feeling. People and relatives told us staff assisted them to be more independent. Comments included, “Staff have improved my life. They have helped me to be more independent. They have supported me to use the bus instead of taxis all the time. I did a short journey on my own. I was scared but I did it” and “Staff add to [name’s] quality of life. They have allowed them to stay at home. They are like friends, sociable. They encourage [name] to do what they can, like brushing their teeth.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. There was a lack of information in people's care records about their allocated call times, meaning staff did not always have up to date information about people's call times. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about staff attending at allocated times and knowing them well. Records evidenced some compliments about the service, including 'extremely happy with care, staff have enabled relative to maintain their independence' and 'Staff support is just what we needed, safety is a number 1 priority'.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of staff.They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff received regular supervisions. However, staff did not receive regular appraisals, probationary meetings or team meetings. This had been recognised by the provider and plans were in place to implement these in the near future. Staff told us morale was good within the team, and they felt supported in their roles. A staff member said, “Staff morale seems good. It's a good place to work. I feel supported by my manager.”