Personalized Care Services

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There were robust systems and processes in place to support a positive learning culture in the service. This included staff team meetings and evidence of lessons learnt from incidents on an incident tracker, which identified areas of learning and actions taken. Staff told us they were actively encouraged to discuss any issues with leaders in the service. One staff member told us, “They [leaders] promote for you to speak up whenever there are issues.” The service took opportunities during the assessment to make improvements in the quality-of-care provision, based on our feedback.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

There were robust systems and processes in place to support people’s transition between services, including working well with other relevant agencies, such as the local authority. One professional told us, “[The service] makes sure the team are fully updated on the needs of the client and has helped when there have been minor issues to resolve these quickly and efficiently.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There were robust systems and processes in place to support safeguarding of people using the service. Concerns were shared with the relevant services, and these were well documented, including any outcomes and actions taken. Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood how to raise concerns appropriately. However, people were not always provided with safeguarding information.

Most people we spoke with did not express any concerns relating to their safety when using the service. One relative told us, “We are in contact [with the service] a lot and they will ring me if there are any concerns.”

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Professionals told us the service involved appropriate agencies to manage risk in a timely manner. One professional told us, “[Leaders] are informative, and share information and concerns where required.” People told us the appropriate services were involved to manage risks relating to their care. One relative told us, “They [staff] call the paramedics if required.”

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Appropriate assessments of people’s home environment were completed to support staff to safely provide care, including specific details relating to people’s accommodation and any associated risk to either people using the service, or staff supporting them.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There were robust recruitment processes in place in the service. Staff were provided with the relevant training to fulfil their role, as well as having regular supervision and attending team meetings. One staff member told us, “They [the service] are quite professional and keep up with any training we need.” People provided mixed feedback regarding staff in the service. One relative told us staff were, “well trained”, whilst others had concerns about staff’s communication in the service. The service advised us how they planned to make improvements in this area.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

There were robust systems and processes in place to support the management of IPC in the service. There was an IPC policy and management tool in place which detailed measures staff were required to take to support with infection mitigation, for example, use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

Most people told staff used appropriate PPE when supporting them with care. One relative told us, “They [staff] wear gloves and now wipe their feet and put covers on.” However, one relative we spoke with advised they had observed poor IPC procedures. The service told us how they planned to address this with staff in the service.

The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

There were systems in place to support the safe management of medicines, however, these were not always robust. PRN protocols did not dictate the strength of medications, and medication directions were not always clear for example, when applying creams. Staff medication competencies were not always signed. Regular medication audits including review of medication administration records and spot checks, were completed by leaders in the service, however issues found at our assessment were not identified.

People we spoke with did not express any concerns in relation to their medication. One person told us, “They [staff] sort out my tablets and cream my legs.” The service has implemented improvements to its medication management following this assessment.