Servoca London

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.

The provider recorded any incidents, accidents or other events that affected people and the day-to-day operation of the service. No serious or significant events had occurred since the service began providing care. There was clear guidance for care staff about what to do to report events and other concerns. Feedback from staff confirmed they understood what was expected of them. The provider audited the accident, and incident reports each month in order to monitor any emerging themes or trends and to take any actions that may be identified.

A care worker told us “Yes, I have been given opportunities to learn about my work. This starts with induction, training, meetings, and ongoing support.”

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.

The provider’s policy clearly outlined that an assessment of needs was required by the agency as a part of their consideration into whether they could provide care for the person. We looked at the initial assessments for people which had been written in the first person and had been completed in detail. These assessments explored people’s needs in a lot of detail, not only their medical support needs but their needs as a whole. The assessments clearly described each person’s lifestyle, how they chose to live and their preferences when being supported with their care.

We received feedback from the one commissioning authority that commissioned the service. They informed us that to their knowledge there were no concerns about the way the service cared for people.

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.

The safeguarding policy and guidance for care staff was clear and outlined what action staff should take if concerns arose. If concerns did arise the provider worked with partner agencies to investigate and resolve concerns. No concerns had been reported by or about the two people using the service. No one using the service at present was subject to a court of protection approved deprivation of liberty.

A member of the care staff team told us” Yes, I have received safeguarding training. This taught me how to protect people from harm and what to do if someone is at risk.”

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.

The risk assessment policy was detailed and outlined that risks for each person must be reviewed regularly if events occurred for people that increased potential risks to them. We looked at each person’s risk assessments and found that these were taking place and considered people’s health, personal care needs and more general personal safety.Risks associated with people’s need to use medical devices was also kept under continuous review and guidance for care staff was detailed.

A care worker told us that they received training so that they were aware of risks and what to do if new potential risks emerged. They told us “Yes, I speak with colleagues and service users about risks they may face and how to manage those risks safely. We also discuss these topics during staff meetings.”

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

Risk assessments included consideration of people’s home environments to promote people’s safety and safety of care staff. The risk assessments covered areas such as falls risks, fire safety and areas in relation to the direct personal and healthcare support provided. Comments that we received from a care worker showed that they understood potential risk for people and how to respond to risks.

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 provider carried out pre-employment checks including Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS), employment history and pre-employment interviews. The provider ensured thatall necessary recruitment checks had been completed prior to care staff commencing their employment, and this was recorded. References were obtained from previous employers. The sample we reviewed showed the care staff team were suitable to be employed to work with adults at risk.

Care staff were usually allocated to work with specific people in teams as each person being supported required care staff to be in attendance 24 hours a day. This system of staff support facilitated consistency of care for people who were living with complex medical conditions. Care staff maintained a daily log of all care and support activities that they engaged in throughout each day and night. Consistent staff teams working with each person had the benefit of enabling people using the service and care staff to build positive relationships.

The staff training records we looked at showed that training topics were wide ranging and included safeguarding, equality and diversity and medication. Dates of completed training were recorded as well as the date that any update and refresher training should be undertaken.

A care worker who gave us feedback was positive in their feedback about having the resources they needed to carry out their work and support people. They told us” Yes, I believe there are enough staff available to provide safe care and support.

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.

The provider provided us with evidence of how they adhere to infection prevention and control guidelines, not least in terms of supporting people using medical devices and measures to minimise the risk of infection when care staff maintained these devices.

Care staff were trained to understand and take action to minimise any risks of infection. Detailed guidance and training for specific complex tasks was provided to staff, and competency was assessed to ensure guidelines were adhered to.

A care worker told us that they were provided with personal protective equipment for use when providing personal care. They said, “Yes, I am provided with PPE such as gloves, aprons, and masks. I have also completed infection prevention and control training.”

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 provider had a detailed policy and guidelines for care staff about the handling and management of medicines. There was training provided to staff about how to manage and administer medicines at times when they were required to provide assistance.

Both people using the service at present required the assistance of care staff to administer medicines. We viewed the monthly medication administration audits for each person between November 2025 to April 2026. These demonstrated that the service maintained oversight regarding the safe handling and administration of people’s medicines.

A care worker told us“Yes, I have received medication training and guidance to support people safely with their medicines.”