Felt 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We found the management team were open and transparent and wanted to drive improvement at the service.

There were systems in place to ensure accident and incidents were reported, recorded and investigated. The registered manager had oversight of incidents and when things went wrong. Lessons were learnt and communicated effectively to staff to help drive good standards of practice and service improvements. Policies and procedures were in place to ensure people’s safety, such as safeguarding and whistleblowing.

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 registered managers assessed people’s needs and risks and evaluated whether the service could meet them safely, also taking into consideration people’s location to ensure staff could safely travel between care visits. Records showed effective communication and good working partnerships with health and social care professionals when required.

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 were supported by staff who understood the provider’s policies and procedures in relation to safeguarding adults and children. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults.

Staff we spoke with showed good knowledge of how to recognise the signs of potential abuse and understood the process for reporting concerns and escalating these to external agencies if needed. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities for reporting safeguarding concerns to the local authority safeguarding team.

People we spoke with described good relationships with staff and said there were no examples of concerns about staff attitudes, or behaviour. They said that the people being cared for were safe.

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.

Assessments considered areas of risk to people including mobility, mental and physical health, nutrition and hydration and communication amongst others. Assessments detailed how staff should best provide support to people to minimise and mitigate risks identified in these areas.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe when receiving care. One person told us, “They’re very meticulous and careful.”

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We reviewed an environmental risk assessment; however, found this had not been completed.

People had detailed Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans in place, which details how staff should support people in the event on an emergency, such as a fire.

People did not have personalised environmental risk assessment to guide staff on risks in people’s home, such as pets, fire and smoke alarms, water and gas mains or contact numbers in an emergency. This meant staff did not have clear guidance on what to do if there was an emergency relating to the environment.

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.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people being supported at the time of the assessment.

The provider told us they like to provide a personable approach, keeping people’s care teams small, with the same carers attending.

Staff received supervisions, with the opportunity to share their opinions, discuss work life balance, and review objectives.

Staff told us they felt able to speak to management about anything, whether this be work related or a personal matter and the provider had supported them in a caring and suitable way.

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 told us that they are supplied with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). This was further supported by people we spoke with who used the service.

People told us staff were clean and tidy, they wore uniform and PPE, including gloves, aprons and masks. Soiled items, such as incontinence pads, were disposed of in the outside bin and the home environment was said to have been cleaned to a high standard.

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.

People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines safely. People told us medicines were given at the right time and a record was kept. One person told us staff bring them their medicines “first thing in the morning when they come and tell me how many there is. It’s all wrote down in the book that’s at the side of me.”

There were care plans and protocols in place to support staff administering medicines.

Clear person-centred guidance to support the safe administration of when required (PRN) medicines were in place.

Staff had received medicines training and competency assessment around medicines.

Management had taken appropriate action when medicine errors had occurred, addressing any learning needs through supervision, training and competency checks.