Global Caring Coventry

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 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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider used learning from CQC inspections of their other locations to improve their processes at Global Caring Coventry. A manager told us following a recent inspection at another location they had looked at how they could improve on the completion of care plans, for example with more personalised information.

It was clear from the management team they knew their roles and responsibilities. Managers told us staff supervision meetings and observations of staff practice helped the service maintain the expected standards. Management told us they were responsible for reviewing people’s risk assessments and care plans, especially following any adverse incidents to ensure any emerging risks were identified and plans implemented to keep people safe. People’s care plans and risk assessments were detailed. They had been reviewed in September 2025 to ensure they remained accurate, and people received the right care. A manager explained how they completed quality audits of care plans, medicines and staff recruitment files. They understood the benefits of how improvements led to positive outcomes for people through accurate recording and monitoring.

Staff told us any areas of learning needed were discussed during regular meetings to ensure they continued to safely support people. Additional training was made available when needed.

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.

Staff told us they supported the same people regularly to ensure continuity of care. Where appropriate staff supported people to arrange healthcare appointments to address any issues related to people’s health.

During our visit we saw some medicine checks had been completed monthly. These had identified a problem for 1 person regarding a prescribed cream. A manager told us how they had investigated the concern by reviewing the person’s administered medicines. The manager had arranged for additional training and supervision for staff to minimise further issues and limit the chance of this reoccurring

We checked the provider’s electronic systems that staff could access remotely on their own mobile phones. We found security had been considered and this helped keep people’s important information protected and safe from others.

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 appropriately.

People did not raise any concerns regarding their care and told us they felt safe with the staff supporting them. A relative told us, “I’m happy with it (the service). It’s safe and they look after [Name] and tell me if anything is wrong.”

Staff had access to safeguarding policies and procedures to remind them of their safeguarding responsibilities. Staff understood how to identify potential risks related to abuse and knew to report any concerns to their manager to enable any investigation to take place. For example, 1 staff member told us, “I would see how they (person) are speaking and if there are any bruises or if they are shy speaking out. I would look for signs of withdrawal. If they were comfortable with something one day and the next day withdrawn, I would take that into consideration. Any bruises I would make sure my manager knows about it and take it up straight away.”

The provider was aware of the process to share concerns with us and the local safeguardingauthority, but reported there had been no recent safeguarding concerns.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Relatives told us they were involved in decisions in relation to the care provided to their family member. One relative told us, “They give safe care. They give very clean personal care. [Name] has had no falls….they check their skin for any redness or sores every day. They will wash [Name] in bed…they are never soiled; they check them and change the bedding.”

Staff were able to describe in detail how they supported people. Information they shared was reflected in people’s care plans demonstrating they knew people well and knew how to provide safe care that met people’s needs.

Care plans provided staff with guidance about how to reduce specific risks related to the care and support people required. For example, where people required support to move, there was clear information about the equipment to be used, and the number of staff required to complete the transfer safely. For people who had risks associated with their skin or specific health conditions, their care plans provided clear guidance for staff about how to manage those risks. Care plans showed people had been involved in risk management at planned reviews. People’s care plans recorded what families were able to manage independently and when staff should offer support.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Care plans included environmental risk assessments of people’s own accommodation to ensure there was a safe working environment for staff to deliver care. This included potential slip hazards such as types of flooring and bathroom and laundry areas. Risks included the home layout, utilities and any potential hazards, including fire safety.

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.

Relatives told us they had no concerns about staff and people were supported by consistent staff who arrived on time to deliver personal care. They told us if staff were going to be late, they were notified by the office. One relative told us, “No missed calls. If they’re delayed the office manager will call to say they are maybe a few minutes late. Yes, they gave me access to the App and it’s brilliant. It lets me know in advance who is coming each week and what care they’ve given.” An app (application) is a type of software that can be installed and run on a computer, tablet, smartphone or other electronic device.

Staff told us there were enough of them to deliver the care packages that were allocated. They were provided with an induction to the service when they started working which included training linked to the Care Certificate. The Care Certificate is a national framework of standards for the health and social care workforce in the UK. Staff also completed additional training to enable them to meet the specific and individual needs of each person who used the service. This included dementia care. Regular refresher training ensured staff remained competent and safe and understood the responsibilities of their role. The manager told us they completed spot checks to ensure staff applied their training correctly.

Management staff told us there were enough care staff for them to allocate a consistent staff team to all care calls people required. Systems we checked confirmed this. The manager told us staff were given travel time between calls to ensure people were supported for the full amount of time identified in their package of care.

The provider used an electronic system to allocate care calls. We were told calls were grouped geographically to ensure consistency in staff delivering individual care packages. This also ensured staff did not have to travel excessive distances between calls. The electronic system was monitored by the management team and if a member of care staff was late to a call, office staff contacted them to enquire about the delay. The care call system showed staff stayed for the allocated time in people’s care packages. The provider’s records recorded no missed or late calls.

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.

Relatives told us staff followed good hygiene procedures. One told us, “They (care staff) wear masks, aprons and gloves. They take them off after and take them outside. It’s very clean. They clean up and no mess is left. Everything is taken out. The hygiene is very good.”

Staff understood what they needed to do if a person developed an infection. They told us they had access to full personal protective equipment (PPE) to enable them to work safely and prevent the spread of any infection. One staff member said, “We can go to the office to pick up what we need. We have full PPE - gloves, shoe covers, masks, gowns, aprons.” They went on to tell us if a person had an infection, “We have to wear full PPE and wash our hands when we go and leave, and make sure any waste is disposed of. We don’t isolate ourselves. We have to go into the person’s house. Make sure they have seen a doctor to make sure they are okay, our hands are sanitised, and we disinfect areas that we use.”

The provider had policies and procedures to guide staff on safe infection, prevention and control practices. Records confirmed staff completed the necessary training to help ensure they worked safely. This included food hygiene training.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Relatives told us people were appropriately supported with their medicines. One relative told us, “[Name] only has 1 medication in the morning. It’s something for their [health condition]. It’s given at the proper time. It’s never been late or missed. They record it on the Birdie (electronic system). If they have a chest infection, then they get antibiotics, and it’s put on the chart (medicine record) until the 7 days are finished.”

Staff told us they worked with relatives to ensure people received their medicines as required. One staff member said the person they supported needed no help with medicines but stated, “I just prompt them,” demonstrating they knew the person’s medicine needs.

Medication audits and medicine administration records (MAR’s) showed medicines were administered appropriately. Where people required topical medicines, staff completed body maps to show where this was to be applied. Medicine protocols were in place for medicines prescribed “as required”. Medicine protocols viewed included staff guidance in terms of the medicine to be administered, reason for administration, and the maximum dose in a 24-hour period. People’s care plans included a list of their medicines.

Three medicine audits we viewed identified a missed topical cream. However, the GP had been contacted to check whether the cream was to continue being prescribed or to be given as required. We discussed the possibility of information missing from their audits with the manager. This was because their own audits recorded as an action, ‘staff reminded to document’ but the same issue reoccurred 3 months in a row, which could mean, reminding staff was not addressing the issue. We recommended where other actions had been taken such as further training, this was included within their audit.