Persona Domiciliary Support Service

The people supported have their own tenancies and a separate contractual agreement for support. Some people lived alone whilst others lived in settings with their own bedrooms or flats and shared communal areas.

We visited 3 different settings and found variation in how the different services performed. In one of the settings, we found several shortfalls related to an over reliance on agency staff, inconsistent management, oversight of health and safety, medicines and poor care planning.

Leaders were aware of the staffing and management issues related to an over reliance on agency staff and had an action plan in place to address this. Use of agency staff had reduced. However, it was still impacting on the quality of care at one location. In addition, the action plan had not identified all the shortfalls identified during the assessment, and this had impacted on the care provided. The provider took immediate action to resolve the issues raised during the assessment and the leaders were very responsive throughout the assessment.

We have assessed the provider against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The provider and staff felt strongly about ensuring people receive good care, had control over their choices, increased independence, and joy in their lives. All staff we spoke to had people at the heart of everything they did.

Right Support:

Persona staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported, confidently describing people’s needs, preferences, and communication styles. People’s communication needs were well understood and respected, and staff interactions promoted choice, independence, and dignity.

People were supported to participate in activities, and staff encouraged engagement based on personal interests. Staff demonstrated a strong drive and enthusiasm to ensure peoples wishes and aspirations were met. Positive risk taking was evident to ensure people lead purposeful and fulfilled lives.

Right care:

People received kind and compassionate care. Staff understood and responded to individual needs. Staff delivered person centred care in a manner that upheld privacy, rights and dignity.

Staff were well-trained and demonstrated a clear understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities. They were confident in identifying and reporting any concerns that could compromise a person’s safety. There was a strong, shared commitment across the team to protect vulnerable people from harm and poor care.

Safe recruitment practices were in place, and staff received appropriate training to ensure they were equipped with the skills and knowledge required to fulfil their roles effectively. A recruitment drive had taken place to reduce the reliance on agency staff. People who received support were also paid members of the interview panel.

Some care plans did not contain relevant information, and where highlighted these were updated. The provider had an existing commitment to review and update all care plans i by the end of December 2025.

Right culture

Staff felt valued and empowered to contribute to service improvement. They worked in an environment where openness and transparency were encouraged, and where speaking up was safe and supported. Leaders fostered a culture of continuous learning, collaboration, and accountability.

Most families and all professionals reported positive engagement with the provider and praised the leader’s commitment to improvement. Governance systems supported a culture of safety, learning, and responsiveness, ensuring the service remained person-centred and resilient. However, auditing systems did not identify some the issues we found during the assessment.