Supportive Care Services 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 our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has improved to requires improvement.

This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was no longer in breach of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staff training and recruitment of staff.

This service scored 59 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems and processes for staff, people and their relatives to report any concerns, incidents, accidents and complaints. We were told by the registered manager that since their last assessment in July 2025, there had been no reported safeguarding concerns, incidents, accidents or complaints to investigate and analyse for themes and trends. The registered manager explained how their system worked and what they would do in the event of receiving any information of concern. However, the provider had not consistently demonstrated how they have learned from the outcome of their last assessment to continually identify and embed good practice. While there had been some overall improvement, we found some of the same issues identified at their last assessment had not always been actioned.

People and their loved ones knew who they needed to contact if they were unhappy or had any concerns about people’s care.

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, however the inaccuracies within some care plans and risk assessments had the potential to impact on people moving between services because the information was not consistently correct or reflective of people’s current needs.

Since the last assessment, the registered manager explained to us how they had reviewed every person’s care plan and risk assessment with the person and their family members. We found there remained several discrepancies within care plans and risk assessments that the registered manager should have identified in the reviews.

People and their relatives told us the provider worked with them and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. The information provided by people, their relatives and healthcare partners was recorded throughout people’s care plans and there was clear evidence to support healthcare agency support. This meant there was the continuity of care between services to reflect people’s support needs.

People and their relatives told us people’s care and support were planned and organised with the provider, and their views were listened to and considered. A relative told us, “[Registered manager’s name] discussed all needs of [person] even when [person] was admitted into hospital].”

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 told us there had been no safeguarding concerns, but if they had, they would share them quickly and appropriately with the local authorities.

Staff we spoke with all understood the importance of reporting safety concerns. They told us the registered manager was always quick to respond to any request from them and was very supportive when dealing with any issues that were raised.

People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable with the staff coming into their homes and felt safe.

Staff had completed their safeguarding training. One staff member said, “Anything at all I was worried about I would contact the office and if they didn’t do anything I’d contact CQC or the police.”

The provider had a safeguarding policy in place. The provider was aware of their legal duty to inform the Care Quality Commission of notifiable incidents.

While staff did provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them, the provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage those risks. For example, there were discrepancies found in 2 care plans we looked at where information to support staff on what to do in the event of an asthma attack or allergic reaction was missing.

There continued to be unclear or no guidance for staff on what to do in the event of a seizure, or how to place people into a recovering position if they used a wheelchair. The lack of guidance for staff posed an increased risk of avoidable harm to people. However, when speaking with staff, it was clear they knew how to support people safely. It was also noted the people at potential risk resided with their families who confirmed in conversations with us there had been no incidents involving staff.

People told us the care they received supported their needs.

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

The provider had processes to detect potential risks in people’s home environments and completed an environmental risk assessment before people started using their service. This included assessment of potential risks related to using equipment, slips, trips and falls risks. The assessment also included areas outside the person’s home, such as local parking and pavements.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff were not always recruited safely. There continued to be discrepancies between start dates, induction dates and when pre-employment checks were completed.

Staff competency assessments for medicine administration for 3 staff members had not been accurately completed or signed off to evidence they were competent to administer medication to people. Records indicated 1 staff member had their competencies assessed on a day they were not working. Another staff member, according to the provider’s records, had their induction signed off by the registered manager, but the registered manager was not employed by the provider at that time. Medication competency assessments completed by the registered manager contained information related to working within a care home environment, for example, locking a medication cabinet and wearing a medication (do not disturb) tabard. The registered manager acknowledged these concerns and told us they were administrative errors on their part.

The staff we spoke with told us they received training which they said provided them with the knowledge they needed to deliver safe care. The provider had supported staff in their face to face learning, where English was not their first language, with another staff member who was able to translate any areas of the training where staff were unclear.

Staff told us they had completed their corporate induction and received support from the provider through team meetings and supervisions. However, training records looked at did not always show when staff had been signed off as competent in their role and when their training or induction had been completed.

Staff told us they had undertaken training in caring for people.

The provider made sure there were enough staff on duty to support people. People told us they received support from a consistent staff team which they liked. One relative told us, “[Person] has the same carer, and [person] likes this because they get on very well.”

The provider did manage the risk of infections spreading.

The provider controlled the risk of infection spreading by providing staff with a sufficient supply of appropriate personal protective equipment.

People and relatives did not have any concerns regarding the infection control practices carried out by staff.

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

Care plans identified people’s preferences around the support they wanted to receive with their medication. There were body maps in place to inform staff where creams should be applied; however, these were not always consistently completed.

The provider had started to complete medication audits; however, the information in these audits was limited which meant it was unclear how any improvements were identified to support staff learning.

Medication administration records (MARS) and topical cream medication administration records to demonstrate when and how the medication and creams were being administered to people, were now completed and monitored electronically.

People and relatives spoken with raised no concerns with us about the support they received from care staff with their medicines.