Gladstone Care 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 honestly.

Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Systems were in place to ensure any accidents or incidents were recorded. Records on what follow up action was taken, and outcomes were not always fully consistent or robust. Additionally, systems were not in place to record management reviews of these records to ensure lessons were learnt and continually identify and embed good practice. Assurances were given from the provider around systems being implemented going forward.

The provider worked with people and had good links with other professionals to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed. The service completed their own pre-assessments of people’s needs and care plans were in place to reflect individual needs and ensure continuity of care. Care plans were updated regularly and made available to professionals.

People were supported in a way which protected their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

People told us they were kept safe from avoidable harm. Comments included, “[Staff] are wonderful and treat me with respect” and “I have no concerns, if I did, I would call the office and speak to my family.”

Staff were knowledgeable about their safeguarding responsibilities, understood how to recognise abuse, and knew what to do and how to report this. Staff told us, “I would report any concerns I have to the manager immediately; I make sure people are always heard”, “I would look out for signs of physical abuse and changes to people’s presentation and behaviour. I have completed my safeguarding training” and “I would not hesitate to speak up if I was concerned about abuse.”

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.

Risk assessments about care were person-centred, proportionate and regularly reviewed.

Some risk assessments required more detail, but management took immediate action to implement this, there was no evidence of harm and staff were knowledgeable about people's needs.

Staff told us care plans and risk assessments provided them with enough information on how to manage people’s risk, including risks around medicines for people who have dementia. One staff member told us, “Care plans have enough information, risks and preferences are included in the care plan, we have access to this at all times and empower people to do what they can.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Risks to people and staff related to people’s homes had been identified and well documented.

Staff told us environmental risk assessments were in place to support their health and safety; they had adequate training in how to use equipment in people’s homes and felt competent to do so. One staff member told us, “We use hoists and slide sheets, I am up to date with training and feel competent to use the equipment.”

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, “Staff are absolutely brilliant, they are well trained”.

Staff had received appropriate training and staff understood people’s individual needs and care plans. Staff told us, “My induction was good and the managers are supportive”, “Training is good, we can ask for more training if we want it” and “My induction was very thorough, it was over several weeks and I shadowed someone else, before I was on my own I would be observed. I felt very supported.”

Staff received regular supervisions and competency checks which were meaningful. These included opportunities for staff to feedback and request any additional support/training, and these requests were explored by the service.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. The provider ensured good hand hygiene and hand washing facilities and sanitisers had been provided in each person’s home. Adequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available to staff and systems were in place to monitor stock levels.

People consistently told us staff wore PPE when required and people were supported to maintain good personal hygiene. People told us, “[Staff] do everything I need to maintain good personal hygiene and are absolutely brilliant” and “They are very thorough, they do a great job.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. For medicines that were administered ‘as required’, protocols were in place to guide staff. The service would benefit from recording outcomes and effectiveness of these medicines. Management took action to implement this.

The provider completed regular audits of medicines records and checks of staff competencies were undertaken as part of regular supervisions. People told us medicines were administered as prescribed. One person said, “They remind me and watch me take them.”

The provider had a medicines policy in place and available to staff and staff had received appropriate training.