1-2-1 Live In Care 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 analysed all accidents and incidents to identify any patterns or trends which may mean people’s care needed to be adjusted. Staff said any learning was communicated to them and care plans were updated as necessary.

People and their representatives said the registered manager listened to any concerns and made changes as necessary.

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 staff worked with other professionals to make sure people received the care and support they required. For example, we heard how staff worked with healthcare professionals to make sure anyone returning home after a hospital stay had the equipment and support, they required if their needs had changed.

Feedback from professionals showed staff worked in partnership with them to ensure people received consistent high-quality care.

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 said they felt safe with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I do feel safe with my carer. I have not had any accidents when they have been around.” People who required specialist equipment to support them with mobility, told us they always felt safe when staff assisted them using equipment.

The provider made safeguarding referrals appropriately when they had concerns about a person using the service.

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. Staff spoken with said they were confident if they raised concerns with the registered manager, action would be taken to make sure people were protected from harm.

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 provider carried out risk assessments before people began to use the service. This helped to ensure people could receive care safely. Risk assessments were also in place to minimise risks to staff whilst staying in people’s homes.

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

People lived in their own homes. The provider carried out risk assessments when they started the service to make sure any risks to people and staff were minimised.

People told us staff always made sure their homes were safe. They said staff made sure doors were locked. One person said, “The carer does do the cleaning, and she ensures spaces are free of obstacles and the house is very clean."

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 were supported by staff who were safely recruited and received appropriate training to carry out their role. Staff told us training was good quality and gave them the skills and confidence to safely and effectively care for people. People and their representatives said they felt staff were well trained. One person told us, “I think they are trained well enough to meet my needs.”

Where people had specific needs, the provider arranged specialist training for staff to ensure they were able to meet the person’s needs. The provider had also invested in technology which enabled staff to virtually experience some things that people may experience in their day to day lives such as sensory loss and confusion.

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.

Staff undertook training in infection prevention and control and had access to personal protective equipment. One person’s family member told us, “They do use disposable aprons and gloves, the supplies of which are all set up to hand in an appropriate place. If anyone who comes into the house has a cold, the carer politely asks them to wear a mask to prevent [person’s name] or carer catching it.”

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

Where people needed support with medicines, they were helped by staff who had received training to carry out the task and had their competency assessed as safe.

Staff kept records of all medicines administered and these records were regularly audited by the registered manager. People were happy with how medicines were administered and recorded. We were told that where people needed to have medicines at a specific time, this was complied with.

Some people were prescribed medicines on an ‘as required’ basis. There were protocols in place to guide staff in when these medicines should be offered. However, we found these protocols were not personalised to the individual. The registered manager gave assurances that improvements would be made to ensure the protocols were personalised. (Examples of improved protocols were sent to CQC before the end of the assessment.)

Assessments were carried out where people chose to administer their own medicines to make sure, they were safe to do so.