Stillcare 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 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 adapted the care model when needed and implemented additional hours when risks increased. This showed they took what they learned from events and put it into practice.

The provider issued regular newsletters to reinforce key safety practices and incident reporting expectations. This supported a learning culture.

We saw evidence that the registered manager had held emergency meetings after incidents, shared lessons learned in staff meetings and provided retraining when necessary. This showed the provider sought feedback to learn and improve.

A care worker told us the registered manager, "Explains learning from incidents and accidents to reduce further risk.” Another said, “We write our reflection of lessons learnt and risk assessments are updated.”

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 was involved in CIN [child in need] processes to identify individual’s needs and ensured families received appropriate support to help them safeguard and promote people’s welfare. They responded to escalating risks by engaging with the ICB [integrated care board] and local authority and attended emergency review meetings.

Staff read care plans and risk assessments before starting work and after updates. They acknowledged understanding and signed off where required. This ensured care was consistent.

A care worker said, "Prior to each call we read the care plan and notes from previous carer via an app and acknowledge that we have read it prior to start of the shift." This ensured staff were up to date and able to provide the support people 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.

At the time of assessment, the provider had not raised any safeguarding referrals. The registered manager, who is also the safeguarding lead, explained that if a safeguarding incident occurred, they would log it and refer appropriately to the local authority. They would develop an action plan, update care plans, risk assessments, and monitor trends. This approach aligned with their robust safeguarding policy.

Staff understood safeguarding as protecting people from harm, abuse, and neglect. They completed suitable training for this annually.

A care worker explained safeguarding was, “Protecting people from being exploited, abused, neglected and harmed. Making sure their rights, wellbeing and health are respected.”
 

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.

People and their relatives were involved in discussions about risk and updating plans around this. This showed that the provider respected people’s wishes and right to make choices.

The provider had a process they followed after any accident or incident. A care worker said, “A debrief meeting is called, appropriate training is done, supervision is carried out and competencies reassessed. For example, there was a near miss incident when a service user slipped on a shower mat and fell in the bathtub. After the incident, the care plan and risk assessment documents were updated, non-slip bathmat was introduced, a meeting was held to discuss lessons learnt.”

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 made sure environmental risk assessments were undertaken for every person being supported, including checks on flooring, hazards, bathroom space, and accessibility for equipment.

An incident analysis showed that hazards were promptly identified and addressed, including checks on wet surfaces and equipment stability.

The provider introduced preventative measures such as introducing non-slip mats, reinforcing safe transfer techniques through staff training, and conducted routine environmental safety checks to reduce risk.

The provider documented lessons learned, which reflected a proactive approach to maintaining safe environments. Overall, the provider ensured that equipment, facilities, and processes supported the delivery of safe care and continuous improvement.

A relative told us, “Staff always reported faults and had skills about every equipment used.” Another relative told us, “Yes staff are aware of safety in the home and are trained in how to use the equipment safely.”

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 reported adequate staffing levels and strong managerial support, including cover arrangements for absences. Rotas were planned weekly or fortnightly based on staff availability and geographical mapping to minimise lateness. The registered manager conducted spot checks to ensure staff delivered care and support to meet individual needs.

Staff received core training before working independently, and the registered manager confirmed competence and reviewed this continually.

Where required, staff undertook specialist training. This included Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) feeding. They also completed Oliver McGowan training to provide safe, compassionate and informed care to autistic people and people with a learning disability. Staff received training in seizure management. They also completed Prevention and Management of Violence and Aggression (PMVA), which emphasised non-physical de-escalation and trauma-informed care.

We saw documents to confirm that DBS checks were part of the recruitment process along with the necessary references and right to work checks.

A care worker told us, “On one of the trainings, I was taught how to do oral suctioning and to recognise this need. I learnt how to document the care process as it happens.” A relative said, “Staff are skilled, and when new aspects of care are introduced, they receive the appropriate training.”

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 issued personal protective equipment (PPE) to care workers and reinforced its use through team meetings.

The staff completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training annually. The registered manager carried out regular spot checks and audits which ensured procedures were followed.

A care worker demonstrated their understanding of IPC. They told us, “This is the procedure used to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. I wear gloves and an apron. My registered manager supplies them.”

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.

Staff were trained in medicines administration, and the registered manager checked their competency.

The registered manager had completed medication audits to ensure medication administration records (MARs) were accurate and medicines were given on time.

The provider’s medicines policy provided a clear framework, which followed NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidance covering all relevant areas for safe and person-centred medicines management. The provider supported national initiatives such as STOMP [Stopping Over Medication of People with a learning disability, Autism, or both] and STAMP [SupportingTreatment andAppropriateMedication inPaediatrics] to reduce the risk of over-medication and inappropriate prescribing.

The registered manager checked medicines needs during people’s pre-assessment, and people and families were involved in care plan reviews.