Person Centred Care Services Limited

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

The service was not being well led and the provider had inadequate systems of oversight to ensure the smooth running of the service. There was no registered manager in post at the time of the assessment and staff were not being supported by the provider. Staff morale was very low, and staff did not feel confident that any concerns raised would be addressed. The provider did not keep up with national policy to inform improvements to the service. We identified a number of policies and procedures that had expired, the provider failed to renew their subscription with the company they used to provide these. The nominated individual lacked awareness of their statutory responsibilities in relation to statutory notifications to inform CQC of certain changes, such as applying to relocate the registered office. The nominated individual explained they had appointed a care consultant, but the management and accountability arrangements for this was unclear.

This service scored 39 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback about the culture of the service was mixed from staff and people’s relatives. Staff were anxious about the direction of the service, and many had faced difficulties with late pay from the service. One staff member informed us they needed to use a food bank due to the lateness in pay. The care coordinators were aware some staff were worried about their jobs.

The provider, under the new ownership, did not bring staff together to discuss the vision, values and strategy of the service. The provider continued to miss opportunities to engage with staff in order to provide assurances about the sustainability of the service. At the time of our assessment staff were reaching out to CQC to share concerns they were still not being paid on time.

The care coordinators informed us they welcomed feedback from people or their relatives on the service. Feedback was captured during regular care reviews. However, there were significant concerns about the provider and the lack of input into the management and sustainability of the service. Staff had significant and repeated concerns about whether they would be paid their wages and had not received the necessary assurances from the provider. Staff did not feel the provider recognised the impact this had for them or prioritised the need to address this matter. People and families were picking up on the worries faced by the staff team. One relative commented, “I can’t help but pick it up, it’s a situation where you feel an atmosphere. Situations I’ve overheard where carers are not getting paid on time. They don’t openly tell me what’s going on, but I’ve picked it up.”

We were not assured high-quality leadership at all levels was in place at provider level. Staff morale had been impacted due to the uncertainty of the service since the provider was under new ownership. We have not been assured these matters had been addressed and the provider did not fully engage with the assessment process. Following our assessment CQC continued to receive concerns about late wages. We made contact with the provider and received no response or assurances.

Staff were provided with the opportunity to share feedback on the service following surveys in October 2023. In the main feedback was positive, however some staff felt the communication from the new provider needed to be improved. Comments from the survey had included, ‘Very little communication on the takeover, no communication to the clients which is very poor’, and ‘Would like to meet the new proprietors at some point.’ Feedback from staff at this assessment indicated a massive decline in the relationship with the new owners. One staff member told us, "These new owners are very bad, they don't communicate, and we never get paid on times. “Another member of staff commented, "Pay and Pensions – Its causing stress. The relationship between staff is the only thing getting the staff though this. It is getting beyond a joke."

We were not assured leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency at the service. From January 2024 to May 2024 staff have continued to be impacted by late payments of their wages. Each time communication from the provider to staff has been lacking. During the assessment process CQC made attempts to intervene in order to understand the issues with staff pay. However, the provider did not engage with the assessment process and was not responsive to our request for assurance on these matters.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff morale was extremely low. Late staff payments became the norm for staff, with little or no acknowledgement from the provider given to staff. Staff were not assured by the direction the service from provider leadership and oversight. One staff member commented, “They [the provider] are using other organisations as scapegoats for financial issues. We feel as if we are being lied to.” Another member of staff told us, “The new provider is a shambles, they are not paying staff on time and the same excuses”, whilst a further member of staff noted, “Management communication is poor, we don’t even know who the owner is.”

Since the new owner took over Person Centred Care Service Ltd in April 2023 the service had not been well-led. Some aspects of the service had begun to deteriorate which meant fundamental standards of quality and safety were not being met. The provider had not recruited a new registered manager and there was an overreliance on the office manager and care coordinators to run the service. The business continuity plan was no longer relevant and given the discrepancies in lateness of staff pay it was clear no contingency plans were in place. There was no quality assurance framework in place that would enable the provider to measure the quality of care accurately. The nominated individual did not conduct any audits or assessments of the service. The staff at the service had never met the new owner and when wages were not paid on time staff had to contact the office staff for direction and assurances. During the assessment the office manager and coordinators were unable to locate, and access requested records from the care provision that we were told was coordinated from the office for a different geographical area. We also requested this information from the nominated individual, and we have not been assured by their response. The provider did not keep up with national policy to inform improvements to the service. A number of policies and procedures had expired, and the provider had failed to renew their subscription to the company supplying these to ensure they were complaint with up to date legislation. The nominated individual lacked awareness of their statutory responsibilities in relation to statutory notifications to inform CQC of certain changes, such as applying to relocate the registered office. The provider told us they had appointed a care consultant. However, this person’s management and accountability arrangements was unclear.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff were concerned about their future development and the direction of travel the service was going due to the changes in ownership. There had previously been opportunities to enrol in diplomas such as the NVQ2 or 3, but staff felt that under this provider this was not the case and there were no or limited development opportunities.

There was a lack of provider oversight at the service to focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement at the service. Policies and procedures at the service had expired. We raised this with the provider, and they updated their subscription with an external policy company to ensure these were now in place. The provider was not responsive at dealing with or communicating why staff faced the lateness in pay that was greatly impacting the staff.