Coastal Care Agency

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 66 (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 knew how to respond to concerns about safety and how to report any safety events. Opportunities for learning any lessons were shared with the staff to embed good practice.

An accident and incident recording system was in place. However, there had been non that had occurred in the last 12 months. The sharing of any accidents and incidents was done via a staff information sharing App and staff meetings. If action was needed to be taken the provider told us they would make the relevant authorities aware.

The provider understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour which require providers to be open and honest following any safety incidents.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure continuity of care when people commenced with the service and there was involvement of the person, family members and external health or social care professionals. Preadmission assessments were completed to identify if people’s needs could be safely met by the service. Processes were in place to help ease transition to other services if needed such as emergency hospital admission information. A relative told us, “The information in [Relative’s] care records is also useful to share with their GP when necessary.”

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.

People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. People had consented to their care and treatment. However, where one person was restricted with bedrails this had not been consented to in line with best practice and consideration of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This was addressed by the provider during the inspection. Staff had completed training in recognising and reporting abuse.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. The provider’s systems and processes used for identifying and recording risk management was not always completed with sufficient information. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Some risk management and records were in place. However, some risks related to care and treatment were not always identified or recorded in detail sufficiently for staff to manage those risks. The ones we noted as needing more information were addressed during the inspection. Staff told us they felt they had received the right training to meet people’s needs safely.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

Detailed individual risk assessments associated with the person’s home environment were completed before the service was commenced. One person told us, “The provider did a full risk assessment of the home to make sure there were no risks that could cause harm form tripping or falling.” The provider knew how to access specific equipment should it be required and staff had received specialised training to use equipment safely.

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. Some areas of training required to be refreshed in line with good practise.

The provider completed a variety of checks of suitability on staff being employed, to ensure they were fit and proper to work with people. We saw induction training checklists had been consistently completed. There were enough suitably qualified staff to support the number of people receiving services.

We noted from the training records that some learning still needed to be completed or refreshed. The provider planned during the inspection, for any outstanding training to be completed. Staff told us they felt they had received sufficient training to care for people safely. People we spoke with thought staff were appropriately trained.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared any concerns with appropriate agencies.

Staff received training in infection prevention and control and food hygiene to support good practice in this area. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available and used where needed. One person told us, “Staff follow good practice for infection control and are very professional.” Another person said, “Staff wear their gloves and aprons and tidy up after doing personal care.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. However, some records for managing medicines were not always clear.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines records were clear in identifying the difference between prompting and administrating medicines including some topical medicines. Some records where prompting was done were recorded as administered. Where topical medicines were used records were not always clear about where they were used. The provider took immediate action and improved the records to provide absolute clarity.

People were supported to take their medicines safely and meet their individual needs. Staff had completed medicines training.