Manford Deluxe 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.

Systems were in place to learn from lessons following incidents.

No accidents and incidents had taken place since the last inspection. An accident and incident policy was in place that detailed the process to manage accidents and incidents. An accident and incident template was in place to record incidents. The management team told us if accident and incidents were to occur, then lessons would be learnt where possible from them and shared with staff to ensure the risk of re-occurrence 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.

Systems were in place to capture information as part of the pre-assessment process to determine if the service can support people safely.

We saw the template used to record key information about people’s support and care needs to determine the support required. We were informed this information would be used to inform the assessment process and ensure a smooth transition between services. The registered manager told us, where possible, people had the same carers to ensure relationships were built so people received continuity of care.

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.

A safeguarding policy was in place that detailed the types of abuse and how to escalate concerns if staff suspected or saw abuse to ensure people were protected.

People and relatives told us that people felt safe when supported by staff, reflecting a positive perception of the service's commitment to safety and wellbeing. A person told us, “Yes, I feel safe when they help me.” A relative commented, “Yes, [person] feels safe and comfortable with them. They treat [person] like family, they show [person] love.”

Staff knew about safeguarding processes and had received training in this area. Staff told us that they received comprehensive safeguarding training both at the start of their employment and as part of regular professional development. The training included identifying indicators of abuse, understanding the various forms abuse can take, and learning the appropriate procedures to follow should any concerns be raised. A staff member told us, “I know safeguarding, it’s a process in which we have to take care of a person and look after them and help them from abuse and provide care safely. If I see abuse, I can report this to my line manager and explain everything.”

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.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care. Risks had been identified and there were risk assessments to ensure people were safe when being supported such as on people’s health conditions, falls management and skin integrity. Risk assessments included the risks and how to support the person to minimise risks.

The service ensured that risk management was reviewed on a regular basis or when new risk was identified. Assessments were person-centred to the individual, and they identified the risks, and by actively involving individuals and their families in the process. A staff member told us, “If a person has a risk that can harm them, there is risk control in place. It is very helpful.”

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

Risk assessments had been completed on people’s home environment and living arrangement. Information included details on risks or hazards within the 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 on fire safety, security and access to the property.

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.

The service used a digital system to monitor staff timekeeping. The system alerted management if staff were late for calls, which then the office could monitor. A dedicated staff member was in place to monitor staff call logs. The system gave the service oversight of staff timekeeping. The data showed staff generally arrived to calls on time. A person told us, “They come on time, yes.” A relative told us, “They do come on time to support [person].” A staff member commented, “I am given enough time to go to care visits and there is enough time to support people safely.”

We found staff had been trained in a number of key areas such as with person centred care, first aid and moving and handling. Staff completed the Care Certificate training. The Care Certificate isa set of 16 mandatory standards for healthcare and social care support workers in the UK, developed by Skills for Care, Skills for Health, and NHS England. Staff were also trained on specific areas such as on learning disabilities. A training matrix was in place that allowed management to have oversight of training including when refresher training was due. A relative told us, “Yes, they are trained, they know what they are doing. A staff member told us, “They provide me with good training, it is helpful.”

We saw that new staff underwent a structured induction upon starting with the service. Evidence of completed induction forms was available, demonstrating a consistent approach. The induction covered several vital areas, including initial training, familiarisation with the service’s policies and procedures, and opportunities for staff to get to know people they would be supporting. This process helped new staff integrate smoothly into the service and ensured they were adequately prepared for their roles. A staff member told us, “I did get training before I started my work as part of my induction.”

We saw compliment from a relative about staff skills towards supporting a person, which included, ‘The level of care, compassion and professionalism demonstrated by your carers have been truly remarkable. They have consistently shown a deep understanding of [person] unique needs and have provided personalised care that goes beyond our expectations.’

Systems were in place to recruit staff safely. Pre-employment checks had been carried out such as on criminal records and identity checks and references had been sought from previous employers. This comprehensive vetting process was designed to safeguard people and ensure that only suitable and trustworthy staff were employed, particularly guarding against those who might be barred from working with vulnerable people.

Staff had received regular supervision to ensure they were supported in their roles. Staff told us that they received regular supervisions and were supported. A staff member commented, “Every 3 months, we do supervision. They support me.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

Systems were in place to prevent infection. Staff were able to tell us the process of ensuring people were protected from infection such as good hygiene protocols and wearing personal protective equipment and that they had been trained in infection control. Care plans included information on ensuring staff adhered to good infection control standards such as ensuring good hand hygiene. A relative told us, “Yes, they keep area clean and wash their hands.”

The provider regularly conducted spot checks to observe and assess staff performance, reinforcing that correct infection prevention and control measures were consistently followed during day-to-day routines.

Relatives also confirmed that the service ensured an adequate supply of PPE for staff and carried out spot checks to verify that staff were using it correctly, demonstrating a robust approach to safeguarding both staff and people who used the service.

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

At our last inspection, we found that protocols were not in place for people that required medicines when needed to ensure the medicines were administered safely. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

Medicines were managed safely. The service used a digital system to record medicines administration. Staff signed the electronic medicines administration records (MAR) to show that medicines were given as prescribed. The system did not allow staff to move on to the next task until the MAR chart was completed in full. Management was alerted if MAR charts were not completed on time. MAR charts evidenced that people received their medicines as prescribed. A relative told us, “Yes, they support with medicines and give it on time.”

For people that required medicines when needed such as paracetamol, protocols were now in place to ensure the medicine was given safely.

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