International Care 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. 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.

Systems were in place for learning from events. The registered manager told us there had not been any complaints or safeguarding allegations in the past 12 months and we found no evidence to contradict this. However, there had been some accidents and incidents. These had been reviewed and analysed to see what actions could be taken to reduce the risk of further such incidents re-occurring.

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.

Before people stared using the service, the provider worked with the local authority, the person and their relatives to ensure there was a safe and smooth transition of care. The registered manager met with the person to carry out an assessment of their needs, which included input from the person themselves. Assessments covered needs including medicines, mobility and personal 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.

The registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding allegations in the past 12 months. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. The provider had a safeguarding adults policy in place to help guide practice in this area. Staff had undertaken training about safeguarding and were aware of their responsibility to report any allegations of abuse. A member of staff told us, “I had a safeguarding training. If I see anything concerning about abuse I would report it to the line manager. I would also make the client 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.

Risk assessments were in place for people. These set out the risks people faced and included information about how to mitigate those risks. They were person-centred, based around the risks individuals faced, and people had been involved in developing them. They covered risks including those associated with falling, personal hygiene and mobility. Assessments were subject to review so they reflected the risks people faced as they changed over time. People told us they felt safe using the service. When asked if they felt safe, 1 person replied, “Yes I do, they [staff] go above and beyond.”

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

The provider supported people who lived in their own homes. As such, the provider was not responsible for the maintenance of people’s property or possessions. Nevertheless, they had caried out environmental risk assessments to help ensure the environment was safe for staff to work in. Assessments covered areas such as slip and trip hazards.

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 support people in a way that was safe. The registered manager told us that as there were only a few people using the service, it was easy to monitor that staff were punctual. They told us they had plans for introducing electronic monitoring of staff punctuality if the business grew and there were more people being supported. People confirmed that staff were punctual.

The provider carried out checks on prospective staff to verify if they were suitable to work in a care setting. These included employment references, proof of identification and criminal record checks.

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.

There were systems in place to help prevent the spread of infection. Staff were expected to wear personal protective equipment [PPE] when providing support with personal care. Staff confirmed that they did, 1 member of staff said, “I use PPE such as gloves, masks, aprons etc.” Staff had also undertaken training about infection control. In addition, the provider had a policy on infection prevention and control to help guide good practice in this area.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

At the time of this inspection, only 1 person was receiving support with their medicines. This was limited to staff prompting them to take their medicine. Medicine administration records were in place. These included the name, strength and dose of the medicine. Staff entered the time they had prompted the person to take their medicine after each administration. However, staff did not sign the record so there was no clear audit trail of who had been responsible for prompting the person to take their medicines. Medicines administration records were checked and there was no evidence that people had not taken their medicine as prescribed. We discussed the issue with the registered manager. They told us that henceforth they would ensure staff signed medicines records after each dose was taken. People told us they were satisfied with the support they got with medicines. One person said, “Yes, they remind me [to take medicine].”