JS Care 4 All 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 inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. They did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had a policy and procedure in place for recording accidents and promoting learning from events. However, the registered manager did not have effective oversight of accidents and incidents to support learning, identify trends, and drive for improvement. This meant opportunities to identify patterns, promote learning, and reduce potential risks may have been missed. Staff understood their responsibilities to record accident and incident forms and recognised the importance of informing the registered manager when these occurred. Staff, people, and relatives told us they felt confident raising concerns, and relatives said they were kept informed of any changes.

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. People’s needs were assessed before receiving care and support from the provider. Where required, the provider made referrals and shared information with external professionals, for example during hospital admissions. People and their relatives told us staff communicated well with external professionals, such as GPs. We also received positive feedback from external professionals. For example, one professional told us, “I feel people using their service are safe because they deliver consistent care and they are aware of procedures to follow if there are any concerns.’’

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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. People told us they felt safe receiving care and support from JS Care 4 All. One person said, “I am very happy, they are wonderful.’’ Relatives shared similar views, expressing trust and confidence in the provider. A relative told us, “My loved one is safe, they noticed everything. If anything is wrong, they let me know." Staff had completed safeguarding training, with regular updates in place to ensure their knowledge remained current. They were confident in raising concerns with the registered manager and understood how to escalate externally if required. Staff also spoke positively about the on-call system and the support available to them. One staff member told us, “The on-call service ensures that I am not working alone without support and that the people I support remain safe at all times.’’

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks to people were identified and assessed, with accessible guidance for staff on how to manage these safely. Staff had good understanding of people’s risks and described how they followed care plans and procedures to keep people safe. They had access to the information they needed and had completed relevant training to support them in their roles. The registered manager and office staff carried out regular spot checks to ensure risks to people were being managed appropriately and in line with their care plans.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider had not completed environmental risk assessments for people’s homes where care and support were delivered. This meant risks associated with the home environment had not been formally identified, assessed, or mitigated, placing people and staff at potential risk of harm. This demonstrated a gap in the provider’s approach to ensuring safe environments. Staff had received training in the safe use of equipment, including items used to support people with mobility within their homes. However, without completed environmental risk assessments, the provider could not be assured that all risks associated with the use of equipment and the home environment were effectively managed.

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. There were suitably skilled, competent, and trained staff to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with the care staff provided. A relative said, “They are very caring and respectful. If they are going to do anything different, they always ask my loved one if it is ok to do it. They do spot checks on staff to see if they are doing what they should." Staff spoke positively about their colleagues and the registered manager. They described good teamwork and regular communication with management. One staff member told us, “Even though I may work independently in people's homes, I still feel connected to the team through regular communication, updates, and support from my colleagues and managers. I feel valued and included, and I understand that good teamwork helps ensure the people we support receive the best possible care.’’ The provider followed safe recruitment process, and appropriate checks were carried out before staff commenced employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. However, the evidence explaining gaps in employment history had not always been obtained. This issue was addressed during the inspection, and improvements were implemented to strengthen compliance. Staff completed induction, which included shadowing experienced staff, competency assessments, and ongoing support. Training was delivered through a blended approach, combined with online modules with face-to-face learning. Staff continued to receive regular supervision and spot checks.

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.People were protected from the risk of avoidable infections. Staff had completed training infection prevention and control, and records confirmed this was up to date. Staff had access to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at the point of care. People told us staff wore PPE and supported them to maintain cleanliness within their homes.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They did not always involve people in planning. The provider did not always ensure that people’s medicines were managed safely. Audits of medicines were not in place to identify potential errors and shortfalls, meaning there was limited oversight to support safe practice and drive improvement. In addition, PRN (as required) medication protocols were not in place at the time of inspection. This meant the provider could not be assured medicines were consistently managed safely. The registered manager was made aware of those shortfalls during the inspection and provided an action plan outlining the implementation of PRN protocols and medicines audits going forward. Records we reviewed showed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. Staff had completed medicines training to support safe practice.