Patkay Care Services Ltd

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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.

Accidents and incidents, including near miss events, were reported by staff and action was taken to mitigate the risk of events happening again. There was a clear complaints log in place which also included low level concerns. There were good lines of communication between the registered manager and staff, which meant lessons were learned and action taken to mitigate the risk of events happening again.

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.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. The provider worked well with other health and social care agencies. Staff told us they had access to the information they needed to be able to provide safe care. Comments from staff included, “People have individualised care plans. They tell you everything you need to know such as their history, conditions, home and medication.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff 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 provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider maintained a log of safeguarding events and understood how to report any concerns to the local authority. Staff had training in safeguarding adults and children and understood how to report poor care and abuse. They demonstrated an awareness the people they supported may be vulnerable. People and relatives told us they felt safe. Comments included, “I feel absolutely safe with them all and they are all well trained.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage most 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.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and regularly reviewed. Key risks such as mobility and skin integrity were assessed. Where people needed support with moving and handling, assessments were in place. Risk assessments informed people’s care plans. Some care plans could have been improved by including more person-centred details. However, staff knew people well and they were kept up to date about any changes in people’s needs through good communication. People and relatives told us they felt involved in their care. One relative told us changes to a person’s repositioning plan had helped to keep them safe and well and had led to improved outcomes.

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 relating to people’s homes. They carried out detailed environmental assessments when people started using the service, which were regularly reviewed. This meant staff were aware of any risks when they supported people in their own homes.

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.

People experienced continuity of care and were supported by staff who arrived on time. Staff told us there was enough time assigned for them to be able to travel between calls, and the provider had systems in place to monitor this. Improvements had been made to recruitment practices. This included robust pre-employment checks and a values-based assessment.

Staff had the induction, support and training to be able to carry out their role. They had the opportunity to work alongside experienced staff before working alone. Comments included, “I can say I have gained vast experience and had lots of training since I joined. I have had face to face and online training, and I have since refreshed this. The training gives us all the information.” There were regular spot checks in place to ensure staff were maintaining good standards.

People and relatives confirmed they were happy with the timing and duration of their calls. Comments included, “Everything is good. We are happy with the care.”

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.

Processes were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infection. Staff received training and followed good practice, including wearing personal protective equipment when required. There were regular spot checks on staff to ensure they were maintaining high standards. People and relatives told us staff maintained consistently good practice.

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.

Medication administration records were clear and well completed. Regular audits and checks were in place. Staff had training and their competency was regularly assessed. Some areas for improvement were required. For example, where people were prescribed medication to be taken ‘as and when required’, protocols were in place, but they required more person-centred details. One person was prescribed a high-risk medication, which required a specific care plan. However, we were assured the person was receiving their medication correctly, and the registered manager took action to address this.

People and relatives did not raise any concerns about how their medicines were managed.