Personalized Care Services

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was a clear shared direction and culture in the service, which was provided to people in the services client guide information pack. For example, “We aim to create an environment where individuals are free to express themselves, make choices, and to build upon skills for independence in all aspects of their lives, feeling safe and supported whilst doing so.” Values were demonstrated by leaders in the service and were further embedded with staff by discussing the service’s values in supervision and team meetings.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders in the service had robust systems in processes in place to have good oversight of the service. For example, appropriate auditing and quality assurance documentation was in place, although some areas around medication were not identified in audits. There was also a business continuity plan for any emergency which may take place.

Professionals spoke highly of the leaders in the service. One professional told us, “[Leaders] have always been approachable via email and telephone and have always responded to my queries in a timely manner. [Leaders] are always person-centred and want to support individuals to reach their personal outcomes, wherever they can. I have found [the service] professional and supportive.” Staff told us they felt well supported by leaders in the service. One staff member told us, “The best thing [about the service] is management and teamwork, any kind of help whenever we need it, they [leaders] always help, we have the best management in Personalized Care Services.” People did not express any concerns relating to leadership within the service. One relative told us, “The management listen and act.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt able to speak up to leaders in the service if they had any concerns. People using the service also felt about to speak up to leaders in the service about any issues they had.

One relative told us, “I told them [management] about the problems I had [with my care].” The relative advised this issue was rectified.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

There was a staff equality and diversity policy in place. Recruitment processes evidenced there was a diverse workforce, with staff from varying experiences, backgrounds and cultures. Staff told us they felt well supported in the service in terms of inclusivity.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

There were robust systems and processes in place to support good governance within the service. Leaders completed spot checks, quality assurance and identified learning or any emerging themes and trends, to make improvements to the service. There were regular staff meetings and handovers in place, and this was well documented. Where minor matters were identified during the assessment, the service took action to respond and strengthen its processes and improve documentation.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service worked collaboratively with relevant services to support people. For example, working with local authorities and care associations. The service was also involved in several charity events in the community. Professionals spoke highly about the partnership working with the service. One professional told us, “A [person using the service] I was supporting needed a package of care. [Leaders] remained in close contact with me as we worked together with the [person] to create a care package that worked well for them.”

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff within the service were supported with their learning and opportunities to progress. For example, staff were provided additional training to support their career pathway. Staff told us they were offered any additional training they required and were supported to discuss ideas of improvement for the service within team meetings and supervisions.

The service was very responsive to feedback provided during the assessment process and assurances and swift actions were completed to drive improvement.