Collaborative Care Services 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.

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

This service scored 72 (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. Staff felt there was a good learning culture. They told us incidents were thoroughly investigated and debriefs were provided. This enabled staff to feel supported and promoted a safety culture. There was evidence of incidents discussed during team meetings.

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 received effective communication when people moved into the service, such as risk assessments, support plans, a brief overview about the person's needs, goals and any potential triggers or behaviours to be aware of. One staff member told us, “Any updates are communicated promptly to ensure consistent, person-centred support from the start.” People had documents to support the safe transitions into hospitals.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. However, staff did not always focus on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.
During our site visit, we were informed that a person was not allowed their preferred drink due to an incident which occurred at the service. This was an inappropriate way of managing the person’s behaviour, and could be seen as a punishment. This infringed on the person’s human rights and was an unlawful restriction. We raised this with leaders who told us this type of practice would stop immediately, and that all staff were required to complete further training in restrictive practices.

Records demonstrated the provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. We were unable to obtain feedback directly from people using the service, but relatives told us their family member was safe. People appeared happy and at ease in the presence of staff during our site visit. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns. There was a clear policy which outlined safeguarding procedures.
 

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. People had information in their care plans to help them manage any risks, including positive behaviour management plans. Staff told us they had clear guidance to manage any potential risks. For example, one staff member told us, “I have sufficient detailed information to manage risks effectively, and plans are regularly reviewed and updated to ensure they remain accurate and relevant.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff told us they undertook regular checks on the environment to ensure it was safe. This included regular fire safety checks. Staff had received mandatory training in health and safety and fire safety. The environment had been risk assessed to ensure it was safe.

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. Staff had been recruited safely and had received training appropriate to people’s needs. This included mandatory specialist training in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people. Staffing levels met people’s needs. A relative told us, “Staff know [person] extremely well, they know how to handle things. There is not a lot of staff turnover.” Staff received regular supervisions from leaders and told us they felt supported in their role.

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. People’s home was clean and free from any odours. Staff had received training in Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). Staff told us they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). There was an IPC policy which outlined relevant procedures.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Medicines were managed and stored safely. Medicines administration records (MAR) reviewed had no unexplained gaps in the recording of administration. This meant people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. All staff had received medicines training and were observed administrating medicines by the provider so that their competence could be checked. There was a policy which clearly outlined all procedures relating to medicines.