Select Choice Community Support 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

This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The registered managers had effective systems in place to identify and act on safety incidents, accidents and other events. They learned from incidents and ensured staff were supported to improve practice where needed. Risks were well understood and acted on to reduce them. The registered managers worked well with other professionals to reduce risks.

Staffing levels were safe and provided good continuity of care to people.

Medicines were managed safely and regularly reviewed through the provider’s electronic records system. The provider appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure safety around some core areas of care, such as safeguarding, whistleblowing, mental capacity, safeguarding and infection prevention and control.

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.

People and, where appropriate, their relatives, were involved in describing risks and helping the service put in place plans to reduce these risks.



The registered managers ensured lessons were learned from incidents and any concerns were fully and openly reviewed. Where an external, independent company had completed an investigation for the service, the registered manager had followed this up with additional context and detail, to ensure it was as comprehensive and robust as possible. The registered manager was always alert to finding ways to make the service even safer.

People could have confidence that any safety concerns were explored and their wellbeing was genuinely at the forefront of care planning and delivery.

Policies and procedures had regard to a range of current sources to help ensure care was delivered safely, for instance national alerts about specific risks.

The registered manager understood the importance of reviewing quality and performance to reduce risks and identify emerging trends. They used electronic care record systems to do this effectively.

People felt safe. They and relatives had confidence in staff doing the right thing to keep them safe. One person said, “[Person] used to get really anxious and with different staff would get upset. That doesn’t happen with this service – they have built a team around [person] and anything like that is very rare.”

The provider had trialled different electronic care record systems and interrogated the current system well to ensure it gave them useful safety features. For instance, real-time overview of what tasks staff had completed, and needed to complete.

Policies and procedures ensured a consistent approach to recording, understanding and acting on risks. People’s safety was a priority, and the systems in place supported this. For instance the planning of care calls and the focus on a continuity of care for people.

External partners raised no safety concerns and confirmed the service worked with them to reduce risks. One external professional said, “All risks are managed and I’m informed if there are any changes.”

The registered managers ensured care plans were up to date with information from a range of sources, to ensure risks were well managed.

Safeguarding was taken seriously by the registered managers and others. This formed part of induction training and ongoing supervision with staff, who were confident how to report concerns, and who to.

Leaders acted quickly and transparently in response to any concern.

People raised no concerns about their safety and relatives gave positive feedback about how confident they were in the service. One relative said, “We’ve never had any safety issues and they have always been up front if anything hasn’t gone smoothly.”

Policies and procedures were up to date and in line with good safeguarding practices. They had regard to a range of core risks and the provider demonstrated excellent knowledge of the subtler risks that could present themselves to people using a homecare service, for instance scams.

There were effective systems in place to monitor risks though up to date care planning and risk assessments. These were informed by relevant clinicians and others to ensure people experience good outcomes and were not put at unnecessary risk.

Risk assessments were sufficiently detailed, person-centred and effective at reducing risk. Where there was scope for improvement in the terminology in one risk assessment (to make it plainer English), the registered manager was responsive to our feedback.

Safeguards were not unnecessarily restrictive and people’s rights and freedoms were respected.

Staff knew they could raise concerns and were supported within a culture that encouraged people to question practice and reduce risk.

Risk assessments of people’s environment were thorough and well documented. These had regard to people’s safety and staff safety.

People and relatives confirmed how respectful staff were and how they ensured people’s homes were left tidy and clean. One relative said, “[Person] was very particular and very proud, and staff clocked on to that and made sure everything was in its proper place when they left.”

Relevant policies had regard to up-to-date good practice and guidance.

Staffing was safe and well-managed. People and their relatives were very complimentary about the regularity and reliability of staff. They had confidence in their ability to provide high quality care, on time and every time. There were no concerns raised about the timings of calls, how long staff stayed, or their attention to detail. One person said, “[Person] doesn’t deal very well with change so it’s really important we know who is coming and that anyone new is introduced properly. Give them their due, they have always done this.”

Staffing levels were relatively low given the provider was supporting a small number of people at the time of inspection. The registered manager had the relevant experience and plans in place to grow the service safely.

The provider ensured there were a range of appropriate pre-employment checks and new staff went through a comprehensive induction package. This included face to face training, shadowing and competence checks.

Infection prevention and control was well-managed. No concerns were raised. People and relatives confirmed staff used Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when needed and maintained good hand hygiene and food preparation practices.

Staff received Infection Prevention and Control training as part of their induction.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to reduce the risks of people and staff catching and spreading infections.

People’s medicines were managed safely. The service had effective electronic medicines administration systems in place. The registered manager maintained close oversight of medicines administration records to identify any errors or patterns. The electronic system made close scrutiny of medicines administration simpler and meant less errors.

The registered managers had regularly reviewed their auditing of medicines to ensure it kept up with good practice and enabled them to monitor patterns and trends.

Staff received initial training and regular competency checks of their practice to ensure they were safe and confident. The provider’s policies regarding medicines were up to date and in line with good practice.