Carers To You 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 newly registered 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.

People and relatives knew who to contact if they had any issues or did not feel safe. They said they would contact the care manager for support. Staff were clear how to report safety issues. Staff told us incident reporting was clear and supported by management. One staff member explained that if an incident occurred, they would complete documentation and inform managers, who would then review and follow up actions. The provider had effective systems for recording and reviewing accidents, incidents, and concerns such as falls and safeguarding concerns. The care manager reviewed and investigated these.Lessons learnt were shared through staff meetings, handovers and 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.

People’s care and support requirements were assessed prior to the start of their care package to ensure the staff had the information they needed to safely support people and to understand people’s support preferences and individual risks. One person told us, “I made an application and my [relative] and myself were together when the company came to visit. I was very happy with the situation and process and didn’t have any hesitation in starting the care right away.”Staff said they received sufficient information to support people safely, and the care manager described how they worked collaboratively with the person, relatives and external professionals where needed.

The registered manager told us they aim to match a carer with a person who they feel can meet the person’s needs and can engage with the person. For example, where a person needs more encouragement, a staff member who has patience and can speak the same language as the person is paired with the person. They will ensure family and friends are present so the person can feel comfortable with staff. This demonstrated staff considered the well-being of both people and those important to them when coordinating care and support.

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 support. A relative told us, “[Person] feels safe around carers, he seems to have pretty good relationship with them.”

Safeguarding concerns were reported and escalated appropriately, including to external agencies where required. Leaders understood reporting expectations and had oversight of safeguarding activity. Staff had received training in how to recognise abuse and there were systems in place to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff told us they would report any signs of abuse to their manager and understood the importance of protecting people. They were aware of how to escalate concerns to external agencies where necessary. The registered manager understood their responsibilities for investigating concerns and making referrals to relevant agencies, including the local authority, when appropriate.

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 told us they were involved in decisions about their care and risks were explained to them. A relative told us, “[Person] wants to walk around more but is unsteady and carers support him with the frame”. Risks were assessed with people, and measures were put in place to reduce identified risks while promoting choice and independence. Each person had individual risk assessments covering key aspects of their care and support needs. Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure equipment and the environment supported the delivery of safe care.

Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and the registered manager was proactive in ensuring further detail could be added when necessary.

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

Environmental risk assessments were completed to identify potential risks to people receiving care and to staff providing support in their homes.Where risks were identified, measures were put in place to reduce the likelihood of harm and promote safe care practices. The provider carried out checks on equipment used to support people's safety and wellbeing. For example, staff monitored the effectiveness of equipment, including profile beds and mobility aids.

Records showed environmental risks and equipment needs were reviewed as part of ongoing care planning. The registered manager told us staff carried out visual observations before commencing any activity to ensure the environment was kept safe.

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 told us and an analysis of care call monitoring records showed most care visits were completed on time, and there was a live system monitoring call times and activities to be completed. One person told us, “Carers are always on time, they are doing domically care there can be issues with traffic they will be a minute or 2 late. Sometimes earlier but I don’t mind.” Staff told us they had enough time to get to care calls and had enough time to do extra tasks for people.

Records confirmed staff completed a structured induction and received regular supervision and appraisal to support their performance and professional development. Staff told us they had regular meetings with their line manager and accessed training to keep their skills and knowledge up to date.

Staff competency was monitored through spot checks and supervision meetings. These helped the provider assess staff performance and identify any areas where additional support or development was needed.Training records showed staff training was up to date and recruitment processes were followed.

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.

People were supported by staff who had received training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and raised no concerns about staff practice. We reviewed the provider's infection prevention and control policy and found it was up to date and reflected current guidance. Records and feedback demonstrated the provider had systems in place to support safe IPC practices, for example,spot check audits were completed and on 1 occasion an IPC concern was identified. This was immediately actioned on and lessons were learnt and shared with staff.

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 was able to demonstrate appropriate medicines management arrangements through staff training records, medicines audits and medication administration records reviewed from the wider service. These gave assurances staff had the knowledge, skills and oversight required to support people safely with medicines should this be required. The evidence reviewed provided assurances medicines governance arrangements were in place to support the safe management of medicines. Staff were able to explain how they ensured correct medicines were being administered safely and how they were stored. People had individual risk assessments and care plans in place to guide staff on the support people needed with medicines, although most people were able to manage their own medicines without staff support.