For You Social Care 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. 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 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 provider had good oversight of accidents, incidents and complaints and recorded them appropriately. Staff told us the leaders had a supportive learning and development culture, and they were encouraged to speak up to share concerns and ideas for improvements. Comments from staff included, “Confidentiality is kept, while lessons shared from an incident” and “Yes they do share incidents, so that we reflect and learn”.

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.

Detailed assessments were completed before commencement of care packages to make sure important information about people’s needs was collected. Care plans were reviewed regularly and when people’s needs changed. This was recorded and leaders made sure all information was shared with staff, so that care was delivered safely and in line with best practice. Comments from staff included, “[The registered manager] will tell us in the monthly meeting if someone new is coming after they have been assessed” and “Each time we help with assessments, we meet the person and next of kin”. People and relatives told us their transition to the service was managed well. Feedback from relatives included, “[The registered manager] came, told us what they could offer and checked what [Name] could do, or not do” and “We had a meeting with the manager and a carer, who came to the house and discussed what [Name] needed”. The registered manager worked closely with health and social care professionals to make sure safe systems of care were maintained. We received complimentary feedback from partners which included, “Always keen to set up joint visits, the care staff really know the individuals care needs and we’re able to work together on assessment, treatment, and management. Any issues are promptly raised” and “Good quality, accurate information is received, they have patients’ best interests at heart”.

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.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure people were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Staff received safeguarding training and understood what they needed to do if they thought someone was at risk in line with the provider’s policy. People told us they felt safe when they received care and their support needs were met. One person told us, “They are brilliant, sometimes they go above and beyond if there’s something I haven’t got round to doing, they’d do it”. Feedback from relatives included, “Very safe, there was one time [Name] needed an ambulance and they rejigged all the carers to make sure [Name] wasn’t left on their own” and “There was a power cut and the carer went back to make sure [Name] was safe, that for me was above and beyond”.

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.

Risks were well managed and care plans were detailed and accurate. People’s risk assessments were person centred and included peoples likes and dislikes and what was important to them. Care plans were completed in collaboration with people. Relatives told us they were involved in people’s care. Comments from relatives included, “They talked [Name] through it all, and explained everything”, “We always have a review as well any change of circumstance, they look at if anything needs to change” and “We have a copy of the care plan”.

“Staff told us they were involved in reviewing people’s risk assessments and care plans. Comments included, “We assess as well while we are working, we can suggest a review” and “Care plans are detailed and if there are changes, we give feedback to the office and the support plan is updated, it’s updated immediately”.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.Staff were trained to use equipment safely and training records were up to date. People told us they knew who to contact to raise a concern. People’s feedback included, “There’s a key safe, they always make sure the door is locked”, “The carers also work with the physiotherapist, who told them how to use the equipment” and “[Name] uses a walker. They always encourage [Name] to use it, they follow all the instructions”.

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.

Safe recruitment processes were in place. Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. Leaders carried out monthly competency checks to support staff in their role. This meant people received continuously safe care that met their individual needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they felt there were enough staff, and they worked together well as a team. Feedback included, “I believe there is enough staff” and “We have supervisions, normally 4 a year, or if there is an incident, or if I have a problem that needs to be attended to, the manager has an open-door policy if we need support”. People told us they were happy with the staff who supported them. Feedback included, “They arrive on time, sometimes they’re 3 minutes late. I get a text or a call if they are late” and “If needs be, sometimes they stay over if it takes longer than expected”.

External health professionals gave positive feedback about the service. Feedback included, “They are keen to get in training to support their staff, the [health condition] association provided support for carers and [The registered manager] looks into this for the staff”.

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.The provider had an infection prevention and control (IPC) policy in place and staff were trained. IPC was an agenda item at staff meetings. Leaders were committed to ensuring staff maintained high standards regarding IPC. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available for staff. Staff feedback included, “We collect [PPE] at the office and are encouraged to have spare in the house and car”. People told us staff wore PPE. Feedback included, “They wear a mask, an apron, foot covers and gloves every time” and “There’s a supply of all this in the cupboard, they brought it”.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

The medication risk assessments did not always identify the risks associate with the administration of some medicines. Medicines administration records (MARs) were used by the service to record the administration of medicines. MAR’s indicated people received their medicines. However, the MARs were not always able to demonstrate time sensitive medicines were being administered at the correct times. This meant the information recorded was not always sufficient to ensure the possible risks with administration were mitigated. People’s allergies were clearly recorded on the MAR’s.

Processes were in place to ensure the supply of medicines arrived on time. Supporting information to assist staff in managing medicines clearly showed who was responsible for the ordering, collecting, storage and administering medicines.Additional information about the administration of medicines on a when required basis were present in the form of written protocols. The information included in these protocols was not sufficient to inform care workers when it was appropriate to support the administration of these medicines. Care workers were trained and were assessed as competent to administer medicines safely. Any errors with the administration of medicines were quickly identified and appropriate action was taken to ensure the safety of the person concerned.