Archived: Prior 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty.

System was in place to learn from lessons following incidents and accidents. The registered manager told us there had been no accidents or incidents since our last inspection. An accident and incident policy was in place that detailed the process to manage accidents and incidents. The provider had an accident and incident template to record incidents and the actions taken.

The registered managed told us that should incidents occur then this would be analysed and lessons learnt and shared with staff to ensure the risk of reoccurrence was minimised.

The provider worked with people and professionals to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care when people were being supported.

The service worked with people, relatives and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

The service ensured they received all information available when supporting a person to transition to their service. This included liaising with the referring agency, the person and where possible their relatives. A relative told us, “The manager completed a thorough assessment of [person] needs.”

The registered manager told us, where possible, people had the same carers to ensure relationships were built so people received continuity of care.

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.

There were processes to safeguard people from abuse and harm. A safeguarding policy was in place that detailed the types of abuse and how to report concerns if staff suspected or saw abuse to ensure people were protected.

People and relative told us people felt safe with staff. A person told us, “I am very safe with my carers.” Another person commented, “I have the same carer that I trust and she knows me well so I feel safe.” A relative told us, “My [person] is absolutely very safe with carers.” Another relative commented, “I mean all the carers are very good and my wife is safe. They meet all of her needs.”

Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults and understood how to protect people from harm and who to report to when required. Staff also felt they could be open to the management team if they had any concerns.

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.

There were risk assessments to ensure people were safe when being supported. Risk assessments were in place for people with specific health conditions such as risks associated with hypertension, stroke and diabetes. Risk assessments had been completed for people at risk of falls, moving and handling and skin integrity. Risk assessments included the risks and how to support the person to minimise risks.

People and relatives told us that staff understood risks. A person commented, “I am diabetic, and the carer knows this and understands that I need food regular and understands my diet.” A relative told us, “The carers check [persons] skin integrity and reports to me if they find any red marks.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

Risk assessments had been completed on people’s home environment. Risk assessments included details on risks or hazards within the home environment to ensure care and support could be provided to people in a safe way and risks to staff and people were minimised such as ensuring environment was clear of hazards when supporting people to minimise the risk of falls. Fire risk assessment to identify potential fire hazards were also completed.

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.

During our last inspection, we found staff were late for care calls and were not given enough time to travel for care visits. Therefore, people were not receiving care in a timely manner.

During this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

The service used a digital system to monitor staff time keeping. The system alerted if staff were late for calls, which then the office could monitor. The system gave the service oversight of staff timekeeping. The data showed that staff were on time for care visits and were given time to travel to care visits minimising the risk of being late.

People and relatives told us that staff arrived on time. A relative told us, “Their timekeeping is good, and they do not rush [person].” Another relative commented, “They are on time and stay for the time I expect them to.”

Staff had been trained in a number of key areas such as with safeguarding, health and safety and moving and handling. A training matrix was in place that allowed management to have oversight of training including when refresher training was due.

Induction was also completed for new members of staff, which included training and shadowing experienced members of staff. Staff also received an employee handbook, which included introduction to the service, health and safety information and standards amongst other areas.

People and relatives told us that staff knew people well. A person commented, “They are well trained, and I have no concerns.” A relative told us, “There is no reason to doubt their [staff] competency as they have shown themselves to be highly professional.” Another relative commented, “They are well trained and very nice friendly people.”

Systems were in place to recruit staff safely. Pre-employment checks had been carried out such as on criminal and identity checks and references had been sought. Staff had received regular supervision to ensure they were supported in their roles.

Staff were supported in their roles. Records showed supervisions were carried out, which included individual and group supervisions. Staff told us that they received regular supervisions and were positive about the management. A staff member told us, “[Registered manager] is lovely, very good, very professional and fair.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Systems were in place to prevent infections. Staff had been trained on infection control and told us the protocol to ensure safe infection control, which included wearing Personal Protective Equipment when needed and following good hygiene protocols. A relative told us, “They always wear their gloves and aprons. They are aware of hygiene and dispose of any soiled goods in bags and then into the outside bin.”

Medicines were managed safely. Staff signed the electronic medicines administration record (MAR) charts to show that medicines were given as prescribed. MAR charts evidenced that people received their medicines as prescribed. MAR charts included medicines details such as frequency of the medicines and the support required.

Care plans included the support people required with medicines and the type of medicines people needed support with.

Staff completed medicines training before they were able to complete medicines tasks. A relative told us, “There have been no errors regarding medication.”