Apollo Care Central Manchester

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.

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

This service scored 69 (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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Any accidents or incidents were recorded promptly and accurately through the providers established reporting process. All records were reviewed by the registered manager and, where appropriate, shared with relatives and relevant health and social care professionals to ensure transparency and coordinated support.

Following an accident or incident, the registered manager undertook a structured reflective review. Care plans and risk assessments were updated to reflect new information, ensuring risks were mitigated to the lowest reasonably practicable level. Learning from incidents was shared across the team.

A relative told us, they would contact the office if they had any safety concerns and were assured, they would be listened to.

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.

Safety was a clear priority for the provider, and the assessment process ensured all relevant information about a person’s needs and circumstances was gathered and shared appropriately. This meant any risks to people’s safety were identified early, communicated to the registered manager, and incorporated into care planning.

Out‑of‑hours support arrangements were in place to maintain safety and continuity. Staff had clear guidance on who to contact, how to escalate concerns and how to access urgent support. This ensured people were not left without assistance and risks were managed effectively at all times.

Care and support were planned collaboratively with people, partners and professionals. Staff work closely with external professionals to maintain consistent communication pathways, ensuring that changes in health status, environment or support needs were understood and acted upon.

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 shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives confirmed they were supported safely and felt confident staff understood how to protect them from harm. Staff had completed safeguarding training for protecting vulnerable adults and children from abuse and were able to describe the signs and indicators of potential abuse clearly.

Staff were confident to report concerns to the registered manager, social services or the police, and understood their responsibilities under local safeguarding procedures. They described how they would escalate concerns promptly and accurately, ensuring people were protected without delay.

People told us they felt listened to and were reassured staff would act quickly if they raised a concern.

Staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Everyone supported by the service had capacity to make their own decisions, and this was recorded within their care plan. Staff understood capacity could fluctuate and remained attentive to any changes in a person’s presentation, such as becoming disorientated to time or place.

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.

The provider had clear and comprehensive systems in place to assess, monitor and manage risks. People were involved in understanding their own risks wherever possible, and staff used person‑centred approaches to ensure support remained safe, respectful and responsive. Risk assessments were detailed, regularly reviewed and clearly recorded within care plans. Any new risks coming to light were assessed promptly, and staff ensured information was shared with the registered manager and relevant professionals. One person told us, “I feel safe. They (staff) always make sure I am ready to stand before I get out of bed.” A relative told us there was clear guidance in place around moving and handling and the use of hoists.

Behavioural risk assessments showed risks were predictable, situational and manageable with routine, structure and proactive engagement. These assessments were reviewed with the person and used to shape daily support.

Staff monitored any triggers in patterns of agitation closely and used early intervention strategies such as gentle redirection, offering meaningful activities, reducing background noise and maintaining predictable routines.

Where fire risk assessments identified a high level of risk due to mobility limitations and reliance on a wheelchair. Staff followed personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs), ensured exit routes were clear and reported any concerns immediately.

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 service ensured people lived in safe, well‑maintained environments. Environmental risks were assessed across people’s own homes, and staff followed clear procedures to identify and respond to hazards. This included reviewing fire safety, electrical safety and gas safety, and confirming any appropriate checks had been completed. Any concerns identified were reported promptly to the relevant individuals to ensure action was taken without delay. Staff used structured environmental risk tools and worked with people to maintain safe living conditions, supporting them to understand risks and make informed decisions about their home environment.

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, supervision and development.

Further work was required to ensure the recruitment of staff was completely safe. A full employment history was not always available in application forms, and references obtained were not always clear about who had provided them or in what capacity. We found no evidence of concern in relation to the staff employed, who all had appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks in place. However, gaps in employment history and unclear references meant the provider could not be fully assured staff had the appropriate background, conduct or suitability for the role. This increased the risk of unsafe recruitment decisions being made, even though no issues were identified with the staff currently in post.

Staff received regular supervision and training, and records showed supervision was used to discuss practice, learning and any support needs. Training compliance was monitored by the provider, and although some training had expired, a training improvement plan had been put in place to address this. The plan outlined which courses required renewal, expected completion dates and how progress would be monitored.

Compliance with the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism was in place, and all staff had received this training.

Staff arrived on time to support people. One person told us, “The call is early which is what we asked for. They arrive on time.” People and relatives confirmed they received support from a consistent staff team. A relative said, “Yes, it’s the same staff who visit which is helpful for [Name] due to having dementia.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had systems in place to maintain safe standards of infection prevention and control. Staff followed established procedures for hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment, and maintaining clean environments. People’s homes were assessed for infection risks, and staff ensured cleaning routines, waste disposal and equipment management were carried out safely. Staff received training in infection prevention and control and were able to explain how they applied this in practice to reduce the risk of cross‑infection. Any concerns identified during visits, such as hygiene issues or environmental hazards, were reported promptly to the appropriate individuals to ensure action was taken. People and their relatives confirmed staff wore protective equipment while providing personal care and support.

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

Further work was required to ensure medicines administration was recorded safely and consistently. While we did not find any evidence of concern regarding the medicines administered, medication records required additional information, including the dose, strength and any specific instructions or contraindications. This meant the provider could not be fully assured medicines were always recorded in line with safe practice, increasing the risk of errors or missed information.

The provider used an electronic medicine recording system; however, the system duplicated staff signatures, which could make it appear as though people had been administered double doses. This created potential confusion and increased the risk of misinterpretation during audits or reviews.

Audits were in place, but audit findings did not always reflect the full extent of issues identified in the Medication Administration Records (MARs).

Overall, while medicines administered were not found to be unsafe, the quality and accuracy of medicines recording required improvement. The provider had begun addressing these issues through audits and review processes, but further work was needed to ensure medicines optimisation met safe practice standards and reduced the risk of avoidable errors.