Gain Healthcare 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 Good. At this assessment the rating is 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

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.

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

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.

People did not always feel safe at the service, one person said staff were difficult to understand because of their accents. Another person said they wanted to move to a new provider as they were unhappy with their care.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. The registered manager told us that all safeguarding concerns would be recorded and investigated by the service. However, these systems were not always effective. For example, one person fell into debt relating to rent arrears. The provider did not inform the local authority or raise a safeguarding alert. This placed the person at risk of financial abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and understood their responsibilities to identify and report any concerns.

A risk management system was in place. Care plans contained risk assessments which guided staff on how to manage the risks to people’s safety. The assessments included detailed behavioural plans where people showed signs of distress with could cause harm to them or others. These included triggers to behaviours and de-escalation strategies. Staff were aware of the risks and told us, “My training in challenging behaviours helps me manage situations calmly and effectively.” However, risk management was not always effective. For example, one person who exhibited particularly challenging behaviour continued to be involved in repeat incidents, despite multiple reviews of their care and staff following the guidance in the risk assessments. An action plan to reduce the volume of recurring incidents, dated 14/01/2025 was in place had the success measure of a “Reduction in the recurrence of similar incidents due to better-prepared staff.” However, between I February 2025 and 23 February 2025 records noted multiple similar incidents for this person, 5 of which involved the police. This meant in spite of the risk interventions the person was still at risk of harm.

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

Staff recruitment checks including criminal checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service were carried out to ensure people were protected from being supported by unsuitable staff. Foreign national staff had correct visa documentation. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff told us these was enough staff to support people, and they felt their training was effective. We saw planned staffing levels were consistently maintained.

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.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff told us, and records confirmed staff had been trained in administering medicines safely. Checks were conducted to ensure staff followed safe practice. Medicine records were accurate, consistently maintained and up to date.