Qualitcare24-7 Ltd Portsmouth

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

People and their relatives told us when they had raised an issue with the provider action was taken in a timely manner, there was good communication, and they were satisfied with the outcome. The provider told us following an investigation into incidents, accidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints, learning was shared with the staff who cared for the person, followed by the wider team during staff meetings and supervisions. Where appropriate, areas of learning were used as a case study during staff meetings for additional learning to be shared and any changes required were identified and made. Staff we spoke to confirmed lessons learned had been shared with them during staff meetings and supervisions.

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 were supported by familiar staff when moving between services. The provider worked with external professionals to provide safe care where necessary to access healthcare services. For example, 1 person required support from Occupational Therapists (OT) and the provider made appropriate referrals; another person had been appropriately referred to external professionals for review of their health needs, which was supported by continuity of their care team. This was confirmed by staff and professionals we spoke to.

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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and supported. One person’s relative told us, “[Person] is 100% safe in their care,” another person said, “When something happens, [management] communicate with me, and we’re supported throughout.”

People received care from staff who had received training in safeguarding. When a safeguarding concern was identified, leaders and staff reported this in a timely manner and worked with external professionals to investigate when required. Systems were in place to record and follow up safeguarding concerns and their outcomes and learn from incidents when they occurred. Staff were able to give examples of safeguarding concerns and what the outcomes were. The service had a safeguarding policy in place which staff confirmed they had access to.

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.

People and their relatives told us they received care in a safe way, and staff were responsive. One person’s relative said, “[Person’s] risks were managed well, when there was a pressure injury it was found at an early stage,” and another person told us, “[Carers] are good at recognising my risks, they help with my diabetes, staff know how to help, and my care plan reflects that.”

The provider told us people’s risks were assessed at the initial meeting and appropriate risk assessments were put in place. As care progressed, new risks may be identified which would then be assessed and management plans would be created. The provider also explained people’s risk assessments were reviewed annually but this was also an ongoing process, and new assessments would be created when required.

Records reviewed showed risk management plans were created for people and their individual needs, they were person centred and were updated regularly. Staff confirmed they had access to people’s risk assessments and were able to describe the known risks of the people they supported.

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

People’s home environment was assessed, and any risks were identified and managed to keep people safe. This included equipment checks being completed, hazards being identified and lone working risk assessments for staff, which they confirmed were in place and followed. Systems and processes in place allowed leaders to maintain oversight of the safety of people’s environments.

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 and their relatives told us they were generally visited by the same team of care staff so there was consistency in their care. A relative said, “There’s always consistency, sometimes a new face, but with a familiar face.” People spoke positively of the care they received including staff largely arrived on time and stayed for the duration of the visit. People told us staff would sometimes arrive late but understood it was due to traffic or being delayed at a prior visit; when this occurred, they did not always receive communication from the office team. We spoke to the provider who said they would review their systems to improve this communication.

Staff told us there were enough staff to consistently provide safe care to people and they regularly provided care to the same people. A staff member said, “Someone will always be sent; I’ve not experienced [office] not send someone.” Staff confirmed they received regular training, online and face to face, and were able to request additional training if required. The provider had appropriate procedures for staff recruitment which included overseas recruitment which ensured they had the required skills and knowledge. New staff received an induction, training and competency assessments when commencing employment. There were regular supervisions and staff meetings, with staff feeling supported.

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.

Systems and processes were in place to assess, manage and review risks of infection. Personal protective equipment was available to staff and people confirmed they wore it appropriately. Staff received appropriate training to manage infection risks and effective policies were in place which staff confirmed they had access to.

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.

Medicines risk assessments were completed which identified if the person had allergies, if any medicines had specific requirements such as needing to be administered at a specific time and any possible side effects. Staff completed regular training on the administration of medicines, and their competency was assessed. Audits were carried out to ensure medicines were administered as prescribed and the records were completed accurately. If any issues were identified, improvement actions were implemented. In addition, field supervisors visited people and reviewed the medicines storage and supply. People we spoke to told us they were happy with how staff supported them with their medicines.