You are here

York PA and Student Support Limited Good Also known as York Personal Support.

Reports


Inspection carried out on 29 November 2018

During a routine inspection

About the service: York PA and Student Support Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It was providing personal care to six people at the time of our inspection. The agency supports people with physical disabilities, mental health needs, older people and people with a learning disability or autism. The agency also provides academic support to people who are studying at York University, but that section of the agency is not regulated by CQC.

The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with a learning disability or autism were supported to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s experience of using this service: People received a responsive service, which was tailored to their needs and wishes. Staff were recruited and matched with people, to ensure they were compatible. People benefitted from the relationships they built with a consistent staff team. Feedback we received about the staff showed us they were caring and treated people with dignity and respect.

Staff received an induction, training and support to give them the skills they needed to support people effectively. Risks to people were assessed and minimised and staff knew how to protect people from avoidable harm. People told us staff were reliable and always arrived on time. Where people required it, they were supported to receive their medicines in line with their prescription.

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 practice.

Support plans were in place to give staff the information they needed to support people in line with their preferences. These were updated when people’s needs changed.

Checks were routinely conducted on the quality and safety of the service. We received very positive feedback about the registered manager and nominated individual. People and staff told us they were very approachable. Our discussions with staff indicated there was a very positive, person-centred culture within the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 25 August 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the service’s previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 19 July 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 19 July 2016 and was announced. We previously inspected the service on 16 and 17 July 2014 and at that time we found the registered provider met all of the areas we assessed.

The service is a domiciliary care agency that is registered to provide the regulated activity personal care. This includes support with activities such as washing and dressing, the provision of meals and the administration of medication for people living in their own home. The agency also provides academic support to people who are studying at York University, but that section of the agency is not regulated by CQC. On the day of the inspection three people were receiving assistance with personal care. The agency office is situated in a business park close to York University and there is parking available for people who wish to visit the agency office.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

We found that people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding issues. Personal assistants and managers were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.

New personal assistants were employed following robust recruitment and selection policies and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed at York PA and Student Support.

Staff confirmed they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them. The training records showed that all staff had completed induction training and the training that was considered to be essential by the agency.

We saw there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people’s individual needs, and personal assistants told us that they spent enough time with people to complete the agreed tasks, and to spend time chatting with them. It was apparent that personal assistants genuinely cared about the people they supported.

People were ‘matched’ with a personal assistant who was compatible with them. The feedback we received about personal assistants was that they were flexible enough to meet people’s individual support needs in a way that suited them. It was clear that personal assistants and managers knew the people they supported very well.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who received a service and we saw that most feedback was positive. People’s feedback had been listened to, and the analysis showed that any improvements that needed to be made had been acted on.

Complaints received by the agency had been investigated thoroughly and people had been informed of the outcome, including any improvements that had been made to the service as a result of their comments.

The quality audits undertaken by the registered provider were designed to identify any areas that needed to improve in respect of people’s care and welfare. We saw that, on occasions, incidents that had occurred had been used as a learning opportunity for staff.

We received positive feedback about the leadership and the culture of the service from everyone who we spoke with.

Inspection carried out on 16, 17 July 2014

During a routine inspection

Is the service safe?

People were safe because the service employed individual personal assistants to provide support and ensured they had the knowledge and skills to provide care safely and appropriately. This helped to ensure people received safe care.

People were kept safe because the service ensured staff understood their roles in recognising and reporting any allegations of abusive behaviour. Staff attended training and knew they had to report any concerns, even if an individual asked them not to report a concern. This showed they understood they could not keep secrets in those circumstances.

The service operated a robust recruitment system that ensured only suitably vetted people were employed to support people. This helped to protect people from any risk of harm, by always being supported by staff that had been assessed as suitable to work in the care industry.

Is the service effective?

The service was small so the providers were in regular contact with people receiving care and support and with the staff team. The providers routinely delivered some support to people, so were regularly checking that the service was providing the right care, in line with what people were wanting. The staff told us the providers (owners) were approachable and supportive and they had frequent formal and informal meetings with them. This enabled them to discuss how the service was being delivered.

Is the service caring?

People received care from the same small number of personal assistants who knew their needs well and supported the individual to maintain their independence and stay in charge of their lives as far as possible. People said the staff were kind, caring and respectful. One relative told us �I trust the staff and their competence.� They added �This is the best agency I�ve used.�

Is the service responsive?

People received care and support that was in line with their individual preferences and choices and the service checked regularly with them that this was still the case. That meant people were able to influence the care and support they received.

The service had a complaints process and the two relatives we spoke with knew how to raise a concern about the service and were confident that any concerns would be looked into properly.

Is the service well-led?

The service was small so the providers were in day to day charge, as well as providing some personal support themselves. This meant they were in regular contact with the people receiving care and support and with other members of the staff team.

The service had some systems in place so the providers could be satisfied that the service was running well and in line with what people wanted. These processes were being developed in line with the growth of the service. The staff told us the providers were approachable and supportive, so they could readily get advice or guidance if needed.