Brighter Future Services

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 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.

The service has been operational since 25 May 2021. The registered manager told us to date there had not been any significant accidents or incidents, safeguarding allegations or complaints received. Records we looked at confirmed this. The service had a policy for staff to follow should things go wrong, and we saw there was an incident form template to use should staff need to. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of how to respond to any such incident. Relevant policies provided guidance about how to respond if necessary.

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 and relative received a safe service. People and relative told us they were listened to and able to raise concerns or complaints. A healthcare professional told us, “Dagenham was identified as a placement for [person] under an emergency situation. The registered manager and her team were extremely welcoming of working alongside others. They very quickly developed a rapport with the service user and a heightened awareness of their physical and emotional needs.” People and relative told us that they were aware of who they could contact if they needed to raise any concerns.

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 receiving a service from the provider. A relative said, “Yes, my [Relative] is safe. We are very happy with the care and support. We have no complaints. The registered manager always replies to our phone call, text, and emails.”

The registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding allegations since the service became operational. Appropriate systems were in place to help protect people from abuse and neglect. The provider had relevant policies including safeguarding adults and whistleblowing. The safeguarding policy made clear the providers responsibility for reporting any allegations of abuse to the local authority and Care Quality Commission.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures. They knew how to recognise and report abuse and were able to tell us the signs of abuse. A member of staff told us, “We have completed safeguarding training. If any incident, will contact the registered manager, write it down. If nothing happens, we will contact the police or Care Quality Commission.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them

Care plans included information about potential risks to people. However, we identified inconsistencies between a care plan and a corresponding risk assessment. For example, the care plan stated that the person did not always understand when they needed to eat and was completely reliant on others. In contrast, the risk assessment indicated that the person usually signalled when they were ready to eat. We raised this with the registered manager, who acknowledged the inconsistency and updated the risk assessment in line with our recommendations.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in planning their care which involved managing any risks to their safety. A relative told us, “We have been involved in care planning and reviews. The registered manager still asked us questions, and advice to manage special events like birthdays and Christmas for my [Relative] using the service. The registered manager took board our advice. It had been quite a smooth journey.”

A healthcare professional said, “The registered manager and their team were extremely welcoming of working alongside others. A behavioural advisor and we worked closely with the team of staff, and all were receptive to information shared. They very quickly developed a rapport with [Person] and a heightened awareness of their physical and emotional needs.”

Staff were aware of the risks to people and the steps they would take to keep them safe from harm.

The registered manager carried out spot checks on staff which included observing that they supported people in a safe way. Training records showed staff had received relevant training such as Oliver MacGowan training on Learning Disability and Autism.

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

As this is a domiciliary care service, providing support to people who live in their own homes, the provider had only limited responsibility for ensuring the physical environment was safe. However, as mentioned, risk assessments were in place relating to the environment, which covered things such as slip and trip and hazards in the person’s home.

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.

The registered manager told us as they only had 1 person using the service who received 24 hours care and support. It was easy to monitor staff punctuality. The staff rota was in place. The registered manager told us that if the service grew, they had plans to introduce a system of electronic monitoring to check staff punctuality and that staff stayed for the full amount of time.

The registered manager also confirmed that staff were also encouraged to achieve further qualification and trainings. At the time of the inspection, 3 staff members completed NVQ Level 3 in Health Social Care.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. These provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. This included supervision, appraisal and support to develop and improve services.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in infection prevention and control and demonstrated a good understating of the measures to manage and prevent the spread of infection. The provider had a policy in place on infection prevention and control to provide guidance to staff in this area. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment [PPE].

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

At the time of our assessment, we reviewed people’s medicine records, and no concerns were identified. The medicine records were kept up to date and appropriate risk assessments were also completed. Medicine audits were completed by the registered manager.

Staff told us they had received the appropriate training and were confident in administering medicines to people. A healthcare professional said, “Care staff demonstrate a sound understanding of safe medicines administration and appropriately seek professional advice when required.”

The provider had effective medicines management systems in place. For example, staff had received training in medicines administration and there were relevant up to date policies in place.