West Devon & District Care & Support 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 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.

There was a clear focus on keeping people safe. Health and social care professionals were referred to for advice, as necessary.

Records showed a proactive culture regarding health and safety incidents or concerns, and these had been effectively reflected upon and used to drive improvement.

Accidents and incidents were monitored for any patterns to aid learning, and we saw this had resulted in changes that improved care for people. For example, involvement of relevant health and social care professionals and additional training for staff.

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 confirmed they received safe care and support and, when appropriate, staff liaised with relevant health and social care professionals.

Staff said they were well supported and had enough information to meet people’s needs.

There was clear evidence of appropriate and timely referrals and reviews of people’s care and support. For example, with GPs, community nurses, and occupational therapists.

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 quickly and appropriately.

People felt safe with the staff that supported them and felt able to raise any concerns.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of what might constitute abuse and knew how to report any concerns they might have. For example, staff knew how to report concerns within the organisation and externally to the local authority, police, and the Care Quality Commission.

Staff had received safeguarding training, to ensure they had up to date information about the protection of vulnerable people. The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of their safeguarding role and responsibilities. They explained the importance of working closely with commissioners, the local authority and relevant health and social care professionals on an on-going basis.

There were clear policies for staff to follow. Staff confirmed they knew about the safeguarding adults’ policy and procedure and where to locate it, if needed.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes, an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and how they managed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards within the service. We reviewed people’s care plans and there was no evidence of restrictive practices or people being unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

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’s individual risks were identified, and necessary risk assessment reviews were carried out to keep people safe. Risk management considered people’s physical and mental health needs and showed measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible.

The service had comprehensive risk assessments covering all aspects of the service and support provided. Care plans contained clear guidance for staff about how to recognise and manage risks, for example, when people were experiencing emotional distress and how to support people with acute health conditions.

Staff were aware of and knew where to find information about people's risks. Staff told us changes relating to people’s care were communicated to them through several different channels, for example internal messages, handover notes, and staff meetings.

Staff received training to help them recognise and manage risks while still respecting people’s choices. They described discussing risks openly with individuals to help them stay safe.

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

No one using the service made any comments about not feeling safe in how their care was provided by care staff and the provider organisation. Comments we received from care staff showed they understood potential risk for people in their own homes. Staff received moving and handling training and understood how to use equipment to aid people’s mobility.

Risk assessments included consideration of people’s home environments to promote people’s safety, and safety of care staff.

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.

People confirmed staffing arrangements met their needs. They were happy with staff timekeeping and confirmed they always stayed the allotted time.

Staffing arrangements matched the support commissioned and people were matched with staff who had the skills to meet their individual needs. People received support from a consistent staff team. This helped to build positive relationships between staff and the people they were caring for. This was reflected in people’s feedback to us.

The service had on-call arrangements for staff to contact if concerns were evident during their shift.

Staff received relevant and good quality training in evidence-based practice. Staff had also completed nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care. A staff member commented, “Very good induction. I shadowed people and had face to face training. I shadowed the senior for 2 months before I worked alone until I was confident. I now work alone. The induction was very supportive and allowed me to learn at a pace that worked for me so I could be safe when working alone.”

Staff received supervision for them to feel supported in their roles and to identify any future professional development opportunities. A staff member commented, “I have regular supervisions, and appraisals. These give me the opportunity to reflect on my performance, discuss any challenges, and set goals for development. I also have spot checks and competency assessments carried out by senior staff. These are supportive and help ensure I am maintaining high standards of care while also identifying any additional training needs.”

The provider used safe and effective recruitment and selection processes to recruit new staff into the service.

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.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available. The provider had policies to prevent and control infections. Staff received infection control training and understood their responsibilities in managing infections. People were encouraged and supported with their personal hygiene to minimise risk of infection.

Infection Prevention and Control practices were monitored through regular spot checks, and staff demonstrated good awareness of the required procedures.

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.

People received varying levels of staff support when taking their medicines. For example, from prompting through to administration. Comments received included, “My relative takes medication. I put the meds in the Dossett box, and the carers deliver it to my relative in a very safe manner” and “My relative takes medication supervised by the carers”.

Staff had received medicine training and competency assessments to ensure they were competent to carry out this task. Staff confirmed they were confident supporting people with their medicines.

Medicine practices were monitored through regular spot checks, and staff demonstrated good awareness of the required procedures.