Marygold Care UK 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 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.

An effective system was in place to report, record and monitor incidents and accidents to help support people safely. There was a record of lessons learnt to help reduce reoccurrence. Lessons learnt were discussed in regular meetings and staff were encouraged to openly discuss and learn from one another. The registered manager told us, “Keeping all parties safe is key.”

Senior staff promoted a positive learning culture at the service through their monitoring and engagement with staff. There was a focus on learning and improving the service wherever possible. Staff were able to raise concerns outside of the management team to help prevent the development of a closed culture.

The registered manager was aware of their regulatory responsibilities to notify the CQC and submit statutory notifications of any significant events at the service. Records showed that notifications were submitted to CQC as required.

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.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service to ensure the service was able to meet their needs. People and their relatives were involved in the assessment process so their views and wishes were taken into account when planning their care and support. A relative said, “I am familiar with [my family member’s] care plan and feel involved in [their] care. I am kept informed at all times.” Another relative told us, “Communication is very good. I feel involved in my loved one’s care and kept fully informed and regularly reviewed mainly by phone.”

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.

Procedures were in place to help safeguard people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff were able to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and received training to help ensure they were up to date with best practice guidance. Staff said they would report concerns and would not hesitate to do so.

Relatives told us they were confident people were safe in the presence of care staff and were well looked after. A relative said, “They are incredible. I leave my valuable [family member] with them and have no fears.” Another relative told us, “I can relax knowing that good quality care is provided.”

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 were involved in decisions about their care and risk management. Risk assessments covered falls, nutrition, medication, and environmental safety. Risk assessments contained clear instructions for staff about how to support people to minimise and manage risks to help keep people safe. These informed staff of what actions they needed to take to help keep people safe and help reduce the risk of harm. Staff encouraged independence while mitigating risks.

The provider identified and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They helped to ensure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider assessed people’s homes for risks and took action to ensure people, staff and visitors remained safe.

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.

Policies and procedures were in place to help recruit staff safely. Checks on the suitability of potential staff were completed. This included obtaining references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and help prevent unsuitable people from working in care services.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs, and rotas were planned to ensure continuity and consistency of care. Relatives told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the agreed length of time.

The provider used an electronic homecare monitoring system to plan and monitor care visits. This recorded care staffs’ actual start and visit times to ensure they were adhered to, and people received their care as planned. The system promoted continuity of care by monitoring staff deployment.

Staff received induction and shadowing opportunities when they started in their job role. Systems were in place to ensure staff received training suitable for their role and that they have the required qualifications. Staff received supervisions and their practice and competencies were checked. This enabled management to monitor and discuss care staff’s role, performance and development.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and were aware of the procedures to follow if any concerns had to be shared.

Staff followed infection control processes, including washing their hands, keeping people’s home’s clean and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) where appropriate. A relative said, “Cleanliness is very important to me, and [care staff] wash their hands before they start and after doing any personal care which they wear PPE aprons and gloves.”

Staff had completed training about infection prevention and control. Staff said they had enough PPE.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Medicines management systems were in place.

Medicine Administration Records (MARs) were completed by staff. We looked at a sample of these and found these were completed indicating medicines were administered as prescribed.

Staff received training to administer medicines to help ensure they had the appropriate knowledge and skills.

Where people were prescribed medicines on a when required basis (PRN), there were appropriate protocols in place to advise staff on what circumstances and how to give these medicines.