AMG Care Services 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.

At our last assessment, we found safe care and treatment was not always provided because the risk to people was not always assessed and managed. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People’s care plans contained specific risk assessments for different areas of their care. This included people living with health conditions, such as diabetes, as well as those who used mobility aids or required support with catheter care. Risk assessments provided staff with information on signs which could indicate a person was unwell, and when to seek medical help.

Managers regularly reviewed people’s care and any risks with them. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about risk, and their choices were respected. When external health professional support was required, managers made referrals for people. Relatives shared positive outcomes from these referrals. For example, the provision of moving and handling equipment and environmental adjustments, which enabled people to stay living in their own homes as they wished.

Staff had completed training in areas where risks to people were identified. One staff member told us, “We have been trained on many courses to keep people safe, including when mobilising and the use of equipment to support.”

Staff told us they were kept updated about any changes to people’s risk assessments. Staff reported and recorded any concerns about risks to people and informed managers so any necessary action could be taken.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.