Ezey Care 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 provider 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.

Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and share learning through regular supervision meetings and daily communication systems. Staff described feeling supported by the registered manager who they said visited them while they were working daily. The registered manager and staff understood the importance of reporting safety concerns and promoted reflection and continuous improvement. Changes were made to the service and staff working practices when lessons needed to be learnt. For example, adapting care plans, reviewing systems and providing additional staff training.

The provider 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.

The registered manager had gathered information about the individual needs and wishes of the people they supported, and risks to their safety, prior to them receiving a home care service. This information was used to develop person-centred care and risk management plans which were shared with staff to help them provide safe and appropriate personal care to people from the moment they started using the service. Staff worked closely with other community-based health and social care professionals to enable smooth transitions between different care services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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.

People were kept safe. A relative told us, “I trust the manager [registered] and the staff who support my [Name of family member] to keep [them] safe.” The registered manager and staff understood how to safeguard people. They knew how to recognise and report abuse and were able to articulate how they would spot signs if people were at risk of abuse or harm. A staff member told us, “I would let the manager [registered] and team leader know immediately if I thought the person we support was being abused or neglected. I am confident they would then report the incident to the local authority, the CQC and the police if necessary.”

The registered manager worked proactively with the relevant agencies when a concern was raised and took appropriate action to safeguard the person they supported from further risk.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive people of their liberty where this was deemed necessary to ensure their safety. Staff understood people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support using people’s preferred method of communication. The registered manager and staff had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training.

The provider 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.

The provider involved people and their next of kin in managing risk and supported people to take positive risks to promote their independence and wellbeing. A relative told us, “Staff asked me what situations might cause my [family member] distress, so they are fully aware what makes him distressed and what they need to do to prevent that happening. To say I am happy with the progress made by my [family member] with the more humane and skilled approach of staff working here would be an understatement.”

Care plans contained sufficiently detailed information for staff to follow to ensure risks people might face were minimised, so they remained safe when taking part in activities of daily life.

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

The provider assessed the risks in people’s home environments and had put measures in place to manage these. They made sure facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The registered manager and staff routinely conducted in-person monitoring home visits to help them identify and mitigate any potential environmental health and safety risks. There was an up-to-date fire risk assessment for the accommodation and a personal emergency evacuation plan in place for the person. Staff knew what to do in the event of an emergency, including if there was a fire.

The provider 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.

Staff shifts were well-organised by the registered manager and team leader. People received continuity of care from the same, small group of staff who were familiar with their personal care needs, wishes and daily routines. The service did not use any agency staff. A relative said, “We have the same 2 carers all the time with the manager [registered] covering some shifts as well, so my [family member] always receives consistently good care from the same staff who know them] well. Staff know exactly what [they] like, and what triggers to look out that indicate [they] may be becoming distressed, so they can take appropriate action to deescalate any incidents.”

Staff were supported to continually improve in their role. They received a mixture of e-learning and in-person practical, theoretical training and competency-based assessments which were relevant to their role and routinely refreshed.

Staff had ongoing opportunities to reflect on their working practices and to identify any further training, learning or support they might need. Staff had regular informal chats with their line manager as well as more formal supervision meetings with them.

The provider operated safe recruitment practices and only suitable staff were employed to work for this provider. Recruitment processes included appropriate checks, induction and probation.

The provider 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 systems in place to help prevent and control the spread of infection. Staff completed learning to understand about good infection control processes which included food hygiene and infection control training. They had access to resources and equipment to help them reduce infection risks when needed, which included adequate supplies of personal protective equipment [PPE]. The registered manager conducted regular in-person quality monitoring visits to the people’s homes to check infection prevention and control practices.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The provider’s medicines systems were well-organised and safely managed. People’s prescribed medicines were administered by staff who had been suitably trained and assessed as competent to manage them safely. People’s care plans contained detailed instructions for staff to follow about how they preferred to take their prescribed medicines. Medicines administration records (MARs) were completed accurately with no errors noted, confirming people received their medicines as prescribed by health and medical care professionals. Regular audits of medicines practices were carried out by the registered manager and team leader.

The provider was adhering to ‘stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people’ (STOMP). Thisis a national NHS England work programme to stop the inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medications, an identified priority in the NHS long term plan. A relative said, “It’s been years since staff used any sedative medicines to manage my [family member’s] distress, which used to be a common occurrence. The staff know how to keep my [Name of family member] calm and safe without resorting to sedating [them] with drugs all the time.” Staff demonstrated a strong focus on non‑pharmacological approaches and were working closely with multiple community-based health care and medical professionals to continually review the use of psychotropic medicines where possible, in line with STOMP principles.