Miles Ahead Care

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

We saw evidence that the registered manager routinely reviewed incidents with both staff and the people involved, and ensured any learning was shared with the wider staff team. There was a proportionate approach to responding to safety events. Where incidents occurred, these were reviewed appropriately and actions, such as additional training or competency checks, were taken where needed. Complaints and incidents were monitored to identify themes, and learning was shared with staff to support improvements in practice.

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.

People’s visits were monitored to oversee the timeliness of visits and identify missed or late calls. Where issues with punctuality were identified, actions were put in place to reduce risk, including alternative transport arrangements.

The service had systems to promote safe and continuous care. Referrals, typically from the local authority, included agreed care plans which were reviewed by the operations manager before care commenced. An initial visit was arranged to ensure care could be delivered safely and as planned.

Initial visits to people were carried out by senior staff, to assess risks and establish clear support arrangements, ensuring staff were appropriately briefed before any care commenced. These processes supported safe handovers, continuity, and consistency of care delivery.

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.

Staff received training in safeguarding and knew how to identify and report potential abuse. One staff member said, “I understand the importance of reporting any concerns immediately to protect those affected, to stop any form of abuse or neglect and to minimise further potential risks”.

During the assessment, we identified 1 safeguarding notification had not been submitted. Once this was brought to the service’s attention, they responded promptly and confirmed that action would be taken and systems strengthened, to address the issue and ensure systems were updated moving forward.

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.

Staff understood each person they supported and used detailed, person-centred risk assessments to deliver care. These included clear instructions, such as catheter care plans, to support safe and consistent practice and reduce the risk of harm.

Systems were used to help prioritise risks, this was done using a red, amber and green rated approach. People’s care plans showed that people, and where appropriate their families, were involved in decisions about how risks were managed. This helped ensure people were supported safely while maintaining as much independence as possible.

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

Environmental risks were assessed within care planning, and infection control audits supported safe practice. Clear information was recorded about the equipment people used and any risks. This helped staff provide care safely in people’s homes.

Staff and leaders also acted to reduce wider risks to people’s wellbeing. For example, when a person’s home environment was identified as impacting their wellbeing, the service worked with the local authority to seek additional support. This showed a proactive approach to keeping people safe in their living environment.

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.

Recruitment checks were completed by the registered manager to help ensure staff were suitable for their roles, and staff were supervised until they were assessed as competent. Staffing levels were planned in line with people’s care packages to ensure care was delivered safely and consistently. The service also used incentives and practical support to help retain staff and maintain continuity of care.

New staff received a structured induction which introduced them to the service, policies and systems. Staff completed training in key areas relevant to their role, including falls prevention, moving and handling, fire safety and dementia care. Senior staff used a training matrix to monitor training compliance and identify any refresher training required. Ongoing support included regular supervision, training and opportunities to develop skills, with leaders addressing performance concerns and supporting staff to improve. One staff member said, “My induction was good. It helped me to better understand my role and how to support people in my care, and it increased my confidence”.

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.

A recent infection prevention control (IPC) audit from February 2026 showed policies were reviewed regularly and followed national guidance. Staff demonstrated good hand hygiene practices and were observed to be “bare below the elbows.” Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available, used correctly, and disposed of safely.

Cleaning, waste management and laundry were mostly managed safely, with good practice observed during spot checks. The provider identified some minor issues, such as some lack of recording and small gaps in care plan updates relating to infection risks; however, these were addressed through an action plan and completed at the time the assessment. Staff were trained in IPC and staff had competency checks.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The service had medicines management systems, including regular audits and competency assessments to ensure staff remained safe and confident when administering medicines. People were involved in decisions about their medicines, with their level of support clearly recorded and reviewed when needed.

Staff received appropriate training in medicines administration and had their competencies checked regularly. People and families gave positive feedback about the support provided. One family member said, “They realised their medication was going to run out by the weekend. They rang to let me know and sorted it out”, this demonstrated a proactive approach and a collaboration with others to manage medicines safely.

The service used clear and effective recording systems. Records were complete, with no gaps identified, and included key information such as allergies and administration guidance. These systems supported safe practice and understanding of individual risks. Learning from incidents was used to improve practice and reduce the risk of errors.