Cygnet Care (Devon) 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 72 (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 understood their responsibilities to record and report accidents and incidents. Accidents and incidents were monitored and investigated appropriately.Lessons learnt were shared with staff to prevent them from happening again.

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.

Staff were skilled at identifying when people’s health deteriorated and raised concerns about people’s health quickly. They worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes.

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 told us they felt safe. Staff had completed safeguarding training. They knew how to protect people from harm and abuse and how to raise concerns.

The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Records showed safeguarding concerns were recorded in detail and reported promptly to the relevant external agencies. People and their representatives were involved in this process.

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 2005 (MCA) and how they managed DoLS within the service. At the time of the assessment, no one using the service had a court of protection authorised to deprive them 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.

Staff said, “I feel I have access to all the necessary information, including care plans and risk assessments, which helps me manage risks safely and effectively” and “If any changes are required, updates are communicated clearly within the team.”

People were involved in their assessment of risk. Staff were given relevant training to help them keep people safe. This included any training regarding equipment used to support people. Staff identified risks and understood how to manage them. Where staff identified additional support or equipment was needed to reduce risk, this was actioned.

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

Environmental risks were assessed within people’s homes prior to care being delivered. The provider worked closely with the fire service to ensure potential fire risks were reduced.

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 told us they were happy with the staff who visited them. Comments included, “They all know what to do and how to get on with people” and “All the carers seem knowledgeable and capable with all the equipment. I saw a new trainee the other day being given full instruction from an existing staff member.”

Staff told us they had completed a wide range of training and felt confident in their role. One staff member said, “the training is good – we are always topped up on everything we need to be and if there is ever any new equipment or any new needs like, e.g. if a client has new exercises to do the occupational therapist will come in and show the staff.” Another staff member told us about their induction, “I felt supported throughout and the ladies from the office, they all checked in on me and the office staff are so supportive and they are always aware of everything that is going on. (Registered manager’s name) is brilliant she will always check in on us.”

The service had a safe staff recruitment system in place. Supervisions and spot checks were carried out to ensure staff were competent in their role.

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.

People told us staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons. Staff told us they had completed infection control training. The provider had a policy for infection control. PPE was always available to staff. The provider had undertaken spot checks on staff working in people’s homes to ensure staff were wearing the correct PPE.

The provider did not always make sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. We found, on one occasion, staff didn’t follow procedure or national guidance. We discussed this with the registered manager who rectified the issue. We signposted the provider to best practice guidance for hand transcribing medicines on MAR sheets (medication administration records).

People told us they were happy with the support they received with their medicines. Staff told us they had completed medicines training. The provider had a medicines management policy in place. When staff administered medicines, they completed MAR sheets.