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

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to managing risks and managing medicines. 

This service scored 50 (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 and honesty. Staff did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Improvements were required to ensure all accidents and incidents were effectively monitored. We found incidents which were not appropriately recorded, monitored or actioned. The registered manager had recognised this and had recently implemented new systems to enable them to monitor accidents and incidents moving forward.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. They did not always make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Records evidenced staff worked with external professionals to meet people's health needs, such as opticians and dentist. However, records required improving to ensure professionals advice was contained in people's care records. This would enable staff to have up to date guidance about how to safely support people.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Some staff required training about how to safeguard vulnerable adults and children, however staff understood their roles and responsibilities to report concerns. A staff member said, “I would report any abuse or neglect. Physical, emotional, sexual, financial, poor practice, exploitation. I would report to the designated safeguarding lead, Local Authority, CQC, and police.” Notifiable incidents were reported to us and the Local Authority when required. People told us they felt safe using the service. A person said, “Yes, I do (feel safe). Whenever I have problems, I talk to staff, and they talk to me. They are amazing. I like being with this care company.” And a relative said, “I do feel [name] is safe. [Name] gets on well with them. She is very independent. I leave [name] on their own with staff. They would tell me if they felt unsafe.”

The provider did not work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Whilst we found no harm to people, records contained conflicting information about managing risks. For example, care plans lacked detail about managing people's choking risks and epilepsy. There was a lack of information about people's health needs and diagnosis, including if people had a learning disability and there was a lack of information relating to a person's safety equipment.

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 supported in their own homes. Risk assessments and personal evacuation plans were in place for people. Equipment was in place, to enable people to mobilise and receive personal care, such as adapted wheelchairs and hoists. Care plans contained information about how staff safely used people's mobility equipment.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. We received mixed feedback from people regarding staffing, some people told us staff arrived on time and stayed for allocated times. However, others told us staff did not attend with 2 staff as required and were late. A person said, “Sometimes they don’t turn up. Senior staff rings, trying to get me to change the calls. It is different carers.” And a relative said, “They sometimes send one staff instead of 2. I was there so I had to assist the carer. The times are off at the moment, I have raised this with the service.” Whilst a person said, “They have enough staff. The times suit me. They stay for the time and arrive on time.” Call logs were not always completed by staff, and there was a lack of call monitoring in place at the time of our inspection. The service had recently undergone a turnover of staff and was working towards recruiting a full staff team, several staff were currently on induction training. Staff training was not always completed or kept up to date, although this mostly related to new staff who were undergoing inductions. Staff were recruited safely. All pre-employment checks were in place, including references and police records checks, to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults and children.

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. Infection, prevention and control policies and procedures were in place, and staff had access to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). People and relatives told us staff adhered to safe IPC practices. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to follow safe IPC practices to reduce risks to people.

The provider did not make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. We could not be assured medicines were managed safely or people received their medicines as prescribed. We found Medication Administration Records (MAR’s) which were not completed, meaning we could not be assured staff had administered these medicines. Where people received ‘as required medicines’, protocols were not always robust enough for staff to follow about how and when this should be given and we also found some protocols which contained incorrect dosage information. One person’s care plan contained conflicting information about when epilepsy rescue medication should be given. Staff were trained to administer medicines, including rescue medication and had their competencies assessed prior to administering medicines to people.