Samary 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Staff reported all accidents and incidents. They worked with the registered manager to investigate and learn from these. Staff involved people using the service to help them better understand what had happened and be involved in any changes made to their care planning. Relatives told us they were well informed. Staff explained they discussed lessons learnt during team meetings. Managers ensured care plans and risk assessments were updated and staff received additional training, when needed.

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 provider had a referral process in place and told us how they were able to respond flexibly when required to implement care packages when requested to do so. The registered manager carried out a thorough assessment in line with their detailed care plan to ensure people’s needs and wishes were identified before working out a care package which would meet the needs of the individual. This meant they were able to assess and provide care and support promptly whilst working closely with other health professionals ensuring people received the care they needed.

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 with the care staff in their homes and no concerns were raised. A person told us, “I do feel safe; the staff are very helpful and very kind and very flexible. I have had no problems.” A relative said, “The carer comes on Saturdays and takes my son out. He is definitely safe with them, and they get on so well.”

There were systems to help safeguard people from potential abuse. Staff undertook training and were familiar with the provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse. The provider shared information with the local safeguarding authority when they had concerns. The provider worked with others to investigate these concerns and protect people from avoidable harm. The provider shared information with people using the service and their relatives about abuse.

At the time of our assessment, no person required an application made to the Court of Protection for a Community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). This occurs when a person lacks capacity to consent to their care and treatment.

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 had policies and procedures in place for staff to follow which detailed the types of risks people faced and actions staff should take to mitigate and report them.

Risk assessments were well written, clearly detailing what the risk was, and the support required to mitigate it, highlighting the importance of managing the risk whilst maintaining the person’s independence. For example, we saw risk assessments for areas that included, meal preparation and safe eating and drinking and mobility risk assessments.

Staff undertook a range of training to understand how to care for people safely. The registered manager carried out assessments of staff’s competencies and observed them providing care to help ensure this was done safely.

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 and their relatives told us staff helped to keep their homes free from clutter.

The registered manager and staff told us they supported people to live safely in their homes.

Where people required the use of aids for safe moving and handling, risk assessments were in place to support staff to be able to use this equipment safety. A relative told us, “It is a safe environment and everything is well maintained.”

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.

Staffing levels and skill mix were carefully considered to make sure people received consistently safe, good quality care that met their needs. A person told us, “I’m very happy with the care. I’ve only been with them for about a month and I feel well looked after.” A relative said, “The carers are really good. It’s usually just one staff but occasionally they might have to double up.”

Staff received a thorough induction and shadowing period. Staff had completed their mandatory training including courses such as dementia, moving and positioning and falls prevention training.

The provider operated safe recruitment processes. People were protected against the employment of unsuitable staff because robust recruitment procedures were followed. Recruitment records showed checks had been made on relevant previous employment, as well as identity 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.

People and their relatives told us staff used and disposed of personal protective equipment (PPE) safely. Comments included, “I have seen them change their gloves regularly, wear a mask, and they wear aprons when they are supporting [name of relative].”

Staff received training in infection prevention and control and the use of PPE and they were provided with up-to-date government guidance. The registered manager carried out spot checks to assess staff knowledge and practice in this area. A staff member told us, “Yes, we do have enough supply of PPE. We wear gloves, aprons, shoe covers when required. We also have regular training on infection control. The supervisors do spot checks as well.”

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.

Recording and monitoring systems were in place which included ways in which the provider accounted for administration and auditing processes to ensure safe practice.

The registered manager told us about their local knowledge of GP services and pharmacies and were in a position to liaise with these if people or their family required them to do so.

Staff were trained in all aspects of medicine administration which meant they would be able to support people with their medicines where required to do so.