Faiths Care

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 listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People, their representatives, and staff told us they felt comfortable raising safety concerns and were confident they would be listened to. Although there was a low number of incidents and accidents, the provider had systems in place for capturing key details. The systems provided a framework to support future analysis of safety events, although at the time of the inspection, analysis was difficult due to the low number of incidents. Systems supported adherence with regulatory requirements and best practice guidelines when responding to safety events, for example by prompting open information sharing with other organisations such as the local authority and CQC (Care Quality Commission). Despite the systems in place, we identified 1 incident which had not been reported to CQC in line with regulatory requirements. This was an isolated omission and was not a widespread concern. Relatives told us the service was responsive when incidents happened. A relative said “[Person] had a fall. I couldn’t fault the carer, they followed all the procedures, ambulance was called, they made report. I’m totally happy with how they dealt with it. [Person] is now fully recovered.” Complaints were logged and responded to appropriately.
 

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 service worked with people and their representatives to establish their plan of care, prior to the person using the service. People’s feedback confirmed this. A relative told us there had been a “Comprehensive assessment that took some time before the service started”, and another said, “There was an assessment prior to service, frequent reviews, very good communication.”

Leaders understood the importance of information sharing with healthcare partners to ensure continuity of care. They had implemented medical transfer forms which captured key information about the person so their needs could be understood when using other health and care services such as during hospital admissions.

The service worked well with healthcare partners and made referrals where required. Partner feedback confirmed this. People and their representatives also told us the service worked well with other health services involved in their care, such as district nurses and the GP. A relative said, “[They] contact health care professionals if required and I’m notified of changes.”

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.

Safeguarding processes and practices were effective. Policies in place clearly outlined staff and provider responsibilities for reporting and investigating safeguarding concerns. Staff had a strong understanding of safeguarding and the process for reporting safety concerns both internally and externally. Staff told us the culture within the service promoted open sharing of concerns and they felt comfortable raising concerns. They were confident action would be taken. People and their relatives confirmed they felt safe with staff. A relative told us they felt their family member was, “Absolutely 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 and care plans were in place and reviewed regularly. They outlined people’s individual risks and contained guidance to support staff when responding to these risks. Where people were diagnosed with health conditions, fact sheets had been created to highlight the signs, symptoms and responsive strategies to support staff to respond appropriately. Staff told us they felt care plans and risk assessments contained adequate information to be able to meet people’s assessed needs safely. Staff had received training to ensure they understood and could support people’s individual risks, for example in dementia, diabetes, falls awareness and pressure area care. People were enabled to retain their independence due to the supportive approach around positive risk taking. A person told us, “[Care staff] encourage me to be as independent as possible, my mobility is shocking. They encourage me to get up and walk to the toilet.”
 

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

Thorough environmental risk assessments were in place to ensure staff were able to provide safe care in people’s homes. Care plans included detailed information to support staff to use equipment safely, and leaders were aware of the requirement to check the safety of any equipment. Staff had up to date training on a range of health and safety topics including fire safety, health and safety and moving and assisting, to help them to manage environmental risks.

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.

Staff received comprehensive training. They were positive about the training they received, feeling it enabled them to do their job well. People and their representatives told us staff were knowledgeable and well trained. There were enough staff to meet people’s holistic needs, and visit data confirmed this. The service used an electronic system was used to monitor call data to ensure visits were delivered as planned. Call data reviewed as part of this inspection did not highlight any concerns in relation to visit times or duration.

Staff were recruited safely. Systems were in place to ensure important pre-employment checks were completed, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Some staff files lacked justification for deviations from recruitment protocol, such as reasons for relying on character references during the recruitment process, however these pre-dated the registered manager starting in post. The registered manager assured us they would complete a comprehensive audit of staff recruitment files to ensure compliance. New staff received a robust induction and felt well supported through the process. Leaders told us how they had recently improved the induction training to include case scenarios and enhanced training for everyday tasks such as repositioning and dressing people.

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 received infection prevention and control (IPC) training to prevent the spread of infections and protect people. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) and confirmed there were adequate supplies available. People also confirmed PPE was used appropriately by staff when delivering care. One person said, “[Care staff] always wear PPE when assisting, and they change it between personal care and cooking.” Care plans included details of support people needed to maintain their personal hygiene and daily records confirmed this support was routinely provided.

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. However, some records needed strengthening.

Where people used emollients which posed a fire risk, although there were risk assessments in place to ensure their safe use, these were generic in nature and did not define the specific emollient or topical application used. Risk assessments were updated to include more specific detail once raised by inspectors. People prescribed PRN (as required) medicines did not have protocols in place to ensure appropriate use and monitoring. These were implemented promptly once raised by inspectors. Despite the lack of protocols, people told us they were satisfied their medicines were provided safely and in line with their needs. A person said there had been, “No problems”, and said, “They [care staff] are very good with it [medicines].”

Care plans outlined the level of support people required to take their medicines and included personalised information about their preferences. Medicines administration records (MARs) were well completed and showed people received their medicines on time and as prescribed. Audits were completed regularly by the registered manager to ensure any errors were identified and to drive consistency. Staff had received training in medicines management, and their competence was regularly assessed to ensure their practice was safe.