Fission 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 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.

The provider recorded any incidents, accidents or other events that affected people and the day-to-day operation of the service. No serious or significant events had occurred since the service began providing care. There was clear guidance for care staff about what to do to report events and other concerns and our feedback from staff confirmed that they understood what was expected of them. The provider audited the accident, and incident reports each month in order to monitor any emerging themes or trends and to take any actions that may be identified. We viewed these audits from November 2025 to February 2026 to confirm that nothing untoward had occurred.

A care worker told us “Yes, we are always given the opportunity to learn about the work during our monthly team meetings.”

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’s policy clearly outlined that an assessment of needs was required by the agency as a part of their consideration into whether they could provide care for the person. We looked at the initial assessments for people which had been written in the first person and had been completed in detail.

We received feedback from one local authority that commissioned the service and they told us that they had no concerns about how their client was supported by staff.

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 safeguarding policy and guidance for care staff was clear and outlined what action staff should take if concerns arose. If concerns did arise the provider worked with partner agencies to investigate and resolve concerns. No concerns had been reported about the two people using the service. No one using the service at present was subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).

People using the service expressed through their relatives that they felt safe. Care staff told us “Yes, Safeguarding guidelines are always incorporated in our weekly briefing sessions with our supervisor”.

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 risk assessment policy was detailed and outlined that risks for each person must be reviewed regularly if events occurred for people that increased potential risks to them. We looked at each person’s risk assessments and found that these were taking place and considered people’s personal care needs and more general personal safety. One of the two people was living in a nursing home and was entirely bed bound. However, the risk assessment considered risk at times that Fission Care staff were supporting this person.

Care staff told us they received training so that they were aware of risks and what to do if new potential risks emerged. They told us “Yes, I personally do because I care for someone who is not mobile and so anytime we have to move or do anything for them I explain the possible risk and safe ways of handling situations.” We were also told “Yes, I speak to fellow colleagues about the risks people might face and how to manage the risks. We also have staff meetings about these issues.”

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

Risk assessments included consideration of people’s home environments to promote people’s safety and safety of care staff. The risk assessments covered areas such as falls risks, fire safety and areas in relation to the direct personal care provide. The relatives who provided us with feedback were not concerned about their relative being safely cared for in their own home or other care environment. Comments that we received from care staff showed that they understood potential risk for people and how to respond to 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.

The provider carried out pre-employment checks including Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS), employment history and pre-employment interviews. The provider also audited that all necessary recruitment checks had been completed prior to commencing their employment, and this was recorded. References were also obtained and the sample we viewed showed that the care staff team were suitable to be employed to work with vulnerable people.

Care staff were usually allocated to work with specific people which helped to keep consistency of care and all visits were recorded. A benefit of this was that it helped to build positive relationships between care staff and the people they were caring for.

The staff training records we looked at showed that training topics were wide ranging and included safeguarding, equality and diversity and medication. Dates of completed training were recorded as well as the date that any update and refresher training should be undertaken.

Care staff were positive in their feedback about having the resources they needed to carry out their work and support people. They told us “Yes we have enough staff” and” Yes, there are enough staff available to care for 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.

The provider provided us with evidence of how they adhere to infection prevention and control guidelines and care staff confirmed they had suitable supplies of personal protective equipment.

We looked at the most recent infection control audit in December 2025, and this showed that the audit considered key areas to minimise risk of infection and prevention of it, including personal protective equipment. The outcome of the audit was recorded along with any action needed if required. Care staff were trained to understand and take action to minimise any risks of infection and to take action to report any arising concerns to the provider.

Care staff told us that they were provided with personal protective equipment for use when providing personal care. They said “Yes, we are provided with personal protective equipment” and “I did Infection prevention and control training which helped me understand how to prevent infection.”

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.

The provider had a detailed policy and guidelines for care staff about the handling and management of medicines. There was training provided to staff about how to manage and administer medicines at times when they were required to provide assistance.

Neither person using the service at present required the assistance of care staff to administer medicines. One person who was provided with one-to-one support at night but lives in a care home has their medicines administered by care home staff and the other is assisted by their relatives.

Care staff told us that “We have our regular in person and online training” and “I have been provided guidance to provide people with their medicines in a safe way. I also did medication training.”