J&C 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 has changed to 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.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment.

This service scored 59 (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. Incidents, accidents, safeguarding and complaints were audited at the end of each month to identify any themes or trends.

The provider did not always establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. The systems in place did not identify the concerns we found.

The provider worked with healthcare partners when people moved between different services. Before delivering care, the provider obtained relevant information from social workers, brokerage teams, and other involved services to ensure safe and consistent support. One person commented, “There has been a massive improvement from the previous care company.”

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.

Safeguarding concerns were promptly shared with the local authority. Monthly audits were carried out to identify trends and ensure actions to protect individuals were completed and communicated to all relevant parties. People and their relatives reported feeling safe under the provider’s care. Staff confirmed they had access to safeguarding guidance and understood how to report concerns. One staff member told us, “I would go to the managers if I had any safeguarding concerns. If no action was taken, I would contact the CQC or Plymouth City Council."

The service did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. The provider could not always provide evidence staff provided care to meet people’s needs.

Some care records lacked clear guidance for staff, particularly in managing behaviours that could cause distress or self-harm. In several cases, documentation did not include adequate instructions for monitoring, support, or de-escalation, potentially placing people and staff at risk.

Whilst we did not identify anyone who had come to harm, this contributed to the breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment.

Staff knew people well and had training on self-harm.

The provider did not consistently follow its own fire safety policy within the office environment, where staff worked and people visited.

Fire drills were required twice yearly, yet the last recorded drill occurred in January 2023. The provider was unable to supply evidence of regular fire alarm tests or emergency lighting checks.

Whilst we did not identify anyone who had come to harm, this contributed to the breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment

People told us, they felt safe. Comments included, “I feel safe with the carers, I have a key safe and they let themselves in, say who it is and when they go, they return the key and make sure the door is shut” and “I feel very safe in their hands."

Most staff were recruited safely; however, the provider did not always follow its policy when responding to disclosures on Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Some staff were also overdue for spot checks and supervision. The registered manager acknowledged these issues and was taking steps to address them.

Whilst we did not identify anyone who had come to harm, this contributed to the breach of regulation in relation to good governance.

The provider ensured there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff who received appropriate support and development. People described staff as caring and respectful. Comments included, “They are polite and friendly” and “The carers are all very nice, and I have got to know them really well and they know how I like things done."

The provider did not consistently assess staff risks related to cleaning products.

Although COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) risks were identified, they were not always fully assessed.

Whilst we did not identify anyone who had come to harm, this contributed to the breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment.

People reported that staff wore gloves, though some noted aprons were not always used. The provider effectively managed infection risks and shared concerns with relevant agencies. Staff confirmed access to sufficient PPE, and the management team conducted spot checks to ensure correct usage, although for some staff some of these were overdue. People and their relatives told us staff left their homes clean and tidy.

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

Topical creams were recorded on a dedicated cream chart. One person told us there had been rostering issues that led to medication being given late. The service took prompt action, and the issue has not reoccurred. The registered manager told us the system now receives alerts before medication was due, helping prevent delays or missed doses.

People and relatives told us staff communicated when medication supplies were running low, ensuring people did not run out.