EMCAS Lincolnshire 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 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 service had clear and well-established systems for reporting incidents, accidents and complaints. Staff understood their responsibilities in recognising and raising concerns. People and relatives consistently told us they knew how to report issues and felt the service responded quickly and appropriately. Several shared examples of prompt action from the office and management when concerns were raised, and staff described an open and supportive culture.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and showed a strong commitment to keeping people safe. One staff member commented, “Safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility, and the team are very empathetic. They [staff] really care about the clients.” This reflected a positive culture of shared accountability and learning.

While care was delivered safely and staff communicated effectively in practice, the recording processes did not consistently reflect updates or changes in people’s needs. Improving the timeliness and consistency of documentation would strengthen oversight and ensure that learning from day-to-day care was fully captured.

The service had effective processes for referral and initial assessments and many people described the assessment stage as clear, thorough and reassuring. This helped people feel confident as they began receiving care

People told us staff understood their routines and preferences, describing staff as attentive, knowledgeable and respectful. Comments such as, “They know my likes and dislikes” reflected consistent positive experiences once care was established.

Communication during changes in people’s health was strong, with staff escalating concerns appropriately, keeping relatives informed and contacting emergency services when needed. One staff member added, “The office will call you if there’s anything urgent and support is always there when you need it.”

While a few people with complex or time-sensitive needs experienced occasional inconsistencies, families told us the service was responsive and worked with them to resolve issues, including those linked to timing or dementia-related needs. Relatives said they felt listened to and involved in discussions about improving continuity and routines.

People told us they felt safe with staff and said they helped them feel secure in daily routines. People described staff as reassuring and attentive and relatives felt confident their family members were kept safe.

Staff responded appropriately when people’s behaviour or mood changed, with regular staff managing this well. Some people found changes to routine unsettling, emphasising the importance of consistency and clear communication.

There was evidence of prompt action taken when immediate concerns arose, including escalating to external services. One staff member said, “One time I was swamped and the office staff took over with no fuss, which was reassuring.”

Safeguarding procedures were in place, and staff understood how to identify and report concerns. People confirmed staff sought consent, although not all staff could clearly explain safeguarding principles or best-interest processes. We shared this with the registered manager who agreed to book staff on refresher training in these areas. Strengthening communication around safeguarding routes and keeping training refreshed would further reinforce good practice.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People told us that staff were competent in helping them manage everyday risks related to their care. This included risks around medical conditions, skin integrity and moving and handling.

People had care plans outlining how to reduce risks related to medical conditions, health and care needs. This included risks, catheter care and skin integrity. Staff had a good knowledge of supporting people in managing and reducing known risks.

People’s care needs had been assessed and prioritised in the event of an emergency. This helped to ensure those most in need would receive support first. There were provisions to source alternative staff from the provider’s other local services in the event of a staff shortage. This helped to reduce risks related to short term staff sickness or absence.

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

The provider carried out assessments of people’s home environments to identify and reduce any risks related to the delivery of care. This included checking when hoists were last serviced and arranging for hoists to be inspected to ensure they were safe to use. Staff told us they checked the inspection dates and condition of equipment before use.

The provider had invested in technological solutions to aid the delivery of safe care. This included electronic care planning systems and mobile care applications and also offered support in case of emergencies. This helped to improve safety and the provider’s ability to monitor how care was delivered. Staff had completed fire safety training and were aware of the procedure to follow if there was a fire.

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.

We reviewed 5 recruitment records which showed staff were recruited safely and the appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed. We did note some application forms had gaps in employment history which meant processes were not always fully robust. The registered manager agreed to action immediately.

Training records showed staff had completed core modules and were progressing toward additional requirements. This supported ongoing skill development to meet people’s needs.

Staff described supportive management, with one noting, “Management were able to change my shift pattern at short notice so I could attend my study days. They [management] are very supportive.”

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.

People told us staff followed good infection control practices, wearing personal protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons during support with personal care. Staff received infection prevention and control training and understood how to promote good hygiene and reduce infection risks. The provider had developed infection prevention and control policies and procedures based on best practice. Leaders completed observations of staff whilst working; to help ensure they were following guidance set out in the provider’s policy. This helped to reduce the risk of infections spreading.

Medicines were managed safely, with most people either taking their own medication, receiving support from relatives, or having staff administer medicines from blister packs. One family member highlighted the importance of timing for people with strict regimes, saying, “If [staff] are late this causes stress to [family member] as they have a regime for medication.” This underlined how punctuality directly affected safe medicines practice.

Medicine records showed support was given in line with prescribed instructions, with no concerns about missed doses or errors. Care plans detailed the level of assistance required, although some would benefit from clearer information about individual risks or personal preferences relating to medicines.

Staff had completed medicines training and competency checks were carried out to ensure they were confident and skilled in administering medication. A staff member explained, “They will observe you on duty to make sure care is being delivered in the way it meets the person’s needs.” Medicine audits helped maintain oversight and any issues identified were followed up appropriately.