Person Centred Care Services Limited

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

People’s safety was not always maintained as there was insufficient oversight and support from the registered provider and there was a breach of regulation. The staff team supporting people were committed to providing good safe care. Consequently, people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays, and protected their rights. Staff empowered people to make their own decisions about their care and support. People’s individual risks were identified, and risk assessment reviews carried out to keep people safe. However, there was insufficient oversight at provider level to ensure lessons were learnt robustly and risk mitigated.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives spoke highly of the care they received. One person told us, “Most of the small issues we have had have been teething problems and they have worked through them with us.” Another person told us, “Whenever I get in touch, they go along with what I want.”

The coordinators and staff were very knowledgeable about individuals' care and support needs. They told us that they were working on improvements to care plans to add more detailed guidance for staff to follow once they move over to electronic records. Staff understood people’s risks and how to support them to reduce risk and were knowledgeable about how they would record any issues or concerns.

Incidents at the service were low level, meaning there were limited opportunities to analysis and learn lessons from incidents and accidents. However, there were no systems in place to analyse incidents for themes and patterns meaning there was a risk that lessons learnt might not be identified. At provider level there were continuous shortfalls in how the service operated. A senior staff member stated on 7 occasions from January to May 2024 staff were paid late. The provider did not learn from this, and no apologies were given to the staff team. At provider level there was not a culture of safety and learning. There was a lack of openness, transparency and learning from events that had either put people and staff at risk of harm or had caused them harm. The provider told us Person Centred Care Services had been managing the coordination of care for a different part of the country which had been previously under a different registration. However, this was not the case, there was no information on people who had been using that part of the service held and the office manager was unaware of the needs of people using that service.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People felt safe when receiving support from staff. One person told us, “No concerns whatsoever. They seem to know what they are doing.” Relatives was similarly positive about the service with one commenting, “From the carers point of view absolutely brilliant. Their heart and souls are in caring, they are very good. It’s their caring attitude, they are carers. They go out of their way to do what I need them to do.”

Staff were knowledgeable about abuse and felt confident to raise concerns when necessary. One staff member told us, “We are a close team and respect our clients. If I had concerns, I would escalate to the office staff.”

The provider had effective systems and processes in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. No safeguarding concerns were raised against the service. We found good evidence of the care co-ordinator’s being proactive raising welfare concerns. Care workers received annual training in safeguarding adults from abuse and had a good understanding of their responsibilities of the risks of abuse as well as how they should act to minimise these.

People told us that they felt involved in planning their care and support. One person commented, “Yes, we do have a care plan and we had two visits from PCC to complete it. It’s not been reviewed yet, but they have been on the phone a couple of times. They are relatively pro-active.” A relative told us, “They give me what I ask for. It revolves around their needs, and I feel involved.”

Staff understood how to manage risk to people’s wellbeing. Staff read people’s risk assessments and were kept updated of changes to people’s care requirements by office staff. One member of staff told us, “When we get a new client the coordinators always complete the risk management plans to make sure everything is in place.” Staff received specific training in moving and handling to support people to move around their homes safely.

A risk framework was in place, to clearly identify the people who were at greater risk due to health conditions or physical disabilities. People's support plans contained a detailed section regarding any medical conditions. This enabled staff to provide the appropriate support. However, risk assessments and care plans were handwritten and it was difficult to determine whether the information was still relevant and up to date. The service routinely completed environmental risk assessments to minimise the risk of accidents within people's home environments.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We received positive feedback from people and relatives about staff and their attendance for calls. People told us they were not rushed by staff and were happy with the care they received. One person said, “They [care workers] are on time, they do stay the right time, they don’t rush.” Another person commented, “We have had no problems with punctuality. They stay the right amount of time, they might get off a bit earlier if everything is done, it’s at our convenience not theirs,”

Staff feedback about staffing levels and arrangements for travel time in between scheduled call visits was generally positive. All staff apart from 1 reported they had sufficient travel time between visits. One staff member commented, “Travel time is included, I never have to rush.” However, another member of staff told us, “No, we don’t get travel time it does feel like I am racing from one call to the next.”

The provider told us they were unable to support the onsite assessment visit due to staffing shortfalls and sickness meaning that office staff were needed to provide care. The provider was unable to provide suitable assurance they had contingency plans in place to manage these matters and ensure there were sufficient staff to provide care calls and coordinate and manage the office. During out visit we found there were enough staff employed to meet people's care needs and office staff reviewed staffing levels regularly. The office manager felt they had sufficient capacity to pick up care hours where needed. The provider had purchased a new electronic system to monitor calls, but this had not yet been rolled out to staff. At the time of assessment there were no formal systems for office staff to have oversight that calls were attended appropriately. The office manager and care co-ordinators explained the staff team that have been in place for a number of years and people and their families have not shared any concerns around call timings. Staff rotas showed travel time was included within staff runs. The service completed appropriate staff recruitment checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People told us that staff used personal protective equipment, such as aprons and gloves appropriately and there were no concerns about the how staff ensured people were protected from the risks of infection.

Staff completed training in infection prevention and control and had access to the equipment needed to undertake their role.

People were receiving their medicines as needed on time and no concerns about how staff supported people in this area were shared. People were encouraged and received the right support from staff to self-administer where they were able to do so.

Staff told us they completed training to manage and administer people’s medication and confirmed that their competency was assessed at regular intervals. One staff member told us, “Yes, I feel confident in my ability to do that.”

There were appropriate systems in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way. Audits were completed monthly, and any issues were dealt with promptly by the office manager. Care plans contained clear details about the medicines people took, as well as when and how they required them.