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

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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

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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The service had recently developed new visions and values for the service, these required embedding into practice and sharing amongst the staff team. Staff had spot checks in place, including how they communicated with people, adhered to safe practices and managed medicines. Staff received shadowing opportunities prior to providing support to people. Business continuity plans were in place, which detailed how staff respond to emergency events at the service. Staff told us they enjoyed their roles and felt supported by the management team. A staff member said, “I would be happy for my relative to receive care from Personal Assist. Managers are friendly and understanding. I love the clients I look after. They are great. I have enjoyed getting to know individuals and learning their needs and wants.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. There had been recent changes within the management and staff team which had created some unrest amongst the staff team and people. The management team were working towards improving this and planned to implement various systems and processes to enable the service to run more smoothly and retain a core staff team. This included staff recruitment, including a new manager, and new monitoring software systems. This required embedding into practice at the time of our inspection.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There were clear whistleblowing policies and procedures in place, and staff told us they felt comfortable to whistle-blow on poor practice. A staff member said, “I can whistle-blow if I needed to, I would report any malpractice.”

The provider did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture. Some improvements were required to ensure all staff were supported with their professional development, this included training and up to date supervisions. Staff had access to a portal, which shared information and key updates. Staff told us managers were fair, and they had not been subject to any discrimination.

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 not effective in identifying the concerns we found during our assessment, in relation to records, medicines, managing risks and staff development. The provider did not have overarching governance systems in place to manage the safety and quality of the service. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about the service being well led, some people told us staffing was disorganised, whilst others told us they would recommend the service. A relative said, “50% are regular carers and the other 50% lots of different ones. They have different levels of experience. There may be good people on certain shifts.” Whilst another relative said, “I can contact the office, they are easy to get hold of.”

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. Improvements were required to ensure the service was operating effectively and the culture within the service was good. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about how the service operated and worked with them to meet their needs.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. Feedback surveys were not regularly completed for people, their relatives or staff. Information from feedback surveys was not collated or actioned. The provider had recognised concerns we found during our assessment and were open and honest with us about the challenges the service was facing. They had formulated a development plan, which included audit systems, staff development and monitoring people's support.