SCS Homecare 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 this assessment we have assessed a limited number of quality statements in the safe key question. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was 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.

The provider had systems in place to review and investigate accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Staff managed accidents and incidents safely; first aid support was provided where needed, medical support and advice was sought, and management were kept updated. Systems were in place for recording events, and changes had been implemented in response to lessons learnt.

Staff reported an open culture where they were encouraged to report all concerns and had a good understanding of how to respond in the event an accident occurring. They told us, “I would call 111 for advice or 999 if needed, and I would report to my manager and record what happened” and “I would inform the office, help the service user and call 999.”

People were encouraged to raise concerns and staff supported them to do so.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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 were protected from the risks of abuse and staff were trusted to keep them safe. People told us, “I am safe” and “I feel safe [with the staff].” A relative added, “I do feel [relative] is safe and it gives me peace of mind.”

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people. Staff we spoke with were confident to report concerns and satisfied that action would be taken to investigate them. Staff told us, “I have had the training [in safeguarding]. I would report concerns to the care co-ordinator and I know I can also contact the manager and [provider] if needed” and “If I had any concerns, I would report them to the office and I know the office will take it further. I know I could also contact the local authority.”

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 was in the process of moving to an electronic care planning system, they had used the system to devise people’s care plan and risk assessments. People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. Care plans provided guidance for staff to ensure people received safe and responsive care and support. Risks were assessed and mitigated to keep people safe. Risk assessments were person-centred and regularly reviewed.

People and relatives were involved in care planning. This was reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed. One person told us, “I do have a care plan, and yes I do get reviews [of my care].”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for 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.

Recruitment checks were robust to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff had the necessary safety checks in place before starting work and completed a full induction. A staff member commented, “I had training and an induction when I started and it was fine. I did shadowing [observing experienced members of staff] for quite some time.”

Staff received regular training and competency checks to ensure they were skilled to carry out care tasks. A staff member told us, “I have had training. The training was fine and I also had experience of working in care.” Relative told us, “They [staff] are definitely well trained” and “They [staff] use the hoist safely.”

Staff were trained to administer medicines. Staff had to undertake training before they could administer medicines and received competency checks to ensure they administered medicines safely.

Staff had opportunities for supervision [one to one support sessions with their line manager]. A staff member commented, “I have supervisions with the care co-ordinator, they are fine. We get updates also.”

The provider had systems in place to monitor staffing levels and ensure people received their visits as required. The provider used a paper based system to determine staffing levels, issue staff rotas and deploy staff to people’s care visits. However, the provider was in the process of moving to an electronic scheduling system. People and their relatives told us, “The carers arrive on time”, “The carers are reliable”, and “They [staff] are usually on time and notify us if they are running late.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.