Blue Fountain Care Limited

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 positive and open learning culture where safety incidents, concerns and complaints were recognised, reported and used to improve practice. Staff understood how to report accidents, incidents and near misses, and records showed these were reviewed and acted upon. Learning from incidents, such as medication errors, infection prevention and control (IPC) practice and changes in people’s needs, was shared through supervision, spot checks, handovers and staff communications. Where shortfalls were identified, such as incorrect glove use during personal care, immediate feedback, retraining and follow-up monitoring were completed by a care coordinator or senior trained members of the care team. Leaders demonstrated openness and transparency, including self-referral under the duty of candour and engagement with external professionals. This helped to embed learning and reduce the risk of recurrence.

The provider had effective systems to support people safely when their needs changed or when they moved between services. Care plans, risk assessments and hospital passports contained clear and detailed information about people’s health conditions, communication needs, medication and risks. This supported consistent care delivery.

The provider worked well in partnership with professionals to ensure continuity of care. This included timely communication with hospitals, district nurses, therapists and local authority teams. Professionals spoke positively about joint working and said the service was easy and reassuring to work alongside. One professional told us, “Communication is always clear and timely. The staff are proactive and make it easy for us to work together in people’s best interests.”

Staff understood how to escalate concerns when people’s health deteriorated. The registered manager contacted relevant health professionals promptly and arranged additional support or increased care packages where needed. This helped to reduce delays and prevent avoidable harm.

The provider planned transitions carefully, particularly when people returned home from hospital. Relatives told us the provider helped prepare people’s homes to ensure they could return safely, including making sure equipment was in place and care plans were updated. One relative said, “They made sure everything was ready at home before discharge and arranged to collect Mum’s medicines from the pharmacy, so we didn’t have to worry.” Another relative explained how the provider coordinated wider support, telling us, “They even organised volunteers from a charitable organisation supporting older people to help with reading mail and responding to letters. It made a huge difference.” These planned, coordinated approaches helped ensure people experienced safe, smooth transitions and received consistent care during times of change.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had completed safeguarding training, including modern slavery, and could clearly describe different types of abuse and how to report concerns. They gave examples of identifying changes in behaviour, unexplained injuries and potential neglect, and understood when to escalate concerns internally or to external agencies such as social services or the police. Safeguarding incidents were recorded, investigated and shared with relevant professionals where appropriate. Risk assessments reflected safeguarding risks, including financial abuse, self-neglect and fire risk, and showed how these were managed using least restrictive approaches. Leaders took concerns seriously and acted promptly to protect people.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had completed safeguarding training, including modern slavery, and could clearly describe different types of abuse and how to report concerns. They gave examples of identifying changes in behaviour, unexplained injuries and potential neglect, and understood when to escalate concerns internally or to external agencies such as social services or the police. Safeguarding incidents were recorded, investigated and shared with relevant professionals where appropriate. Risk assessments reflected safeguarding risks, including financial abuse, self-neglect and fire risk, and showed how these were managed using least restrictive approaches. Leaders took concerns seriously and acted promptly to protect people.

The provider ensured people were supported in environments that were assessed and managed to reduce risks. Environmental risk assessments identified hazards in people’s homes, including fire safety, lighting, mobility risks and access. Actions were taken to address concerns, such as liaising with fire services, arranging equipment repairs and supporting adaptations to promote safety and independence. Staff were trained to identify and report environmental risks and took appropriate action when issues arose, including escalating concerns to managers and external services. These measures helped to keep people safe in their own homes.

The provider managed risks by regularly reviewing staffing ratios and adjusting them in response to changes in people’s needs. Two staff were always allocated for double‑up calls, reducing risks associated with personal care and moving and handling. Records confirmed no care calls had been missed.

The service had robust safer recruitment processes, including enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, which are used to identify whether individuals have a criminal record or are barred from working with vulnerable groups, helping employers make safer recruitment decisions. The provider also verified references, confirmed staff had permission to work in the UK, and ensured identity documents were checked, verified and in date before staff started working for the service. Staff completed safeguarding training, and managers monitored practice through supervision and spot checks.

The provider ensured there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Rotas allowed adequate time for staff travel and care delivery, and staffing levels were flexible and responsive. Staff told us they were not rushed or overworked and did not feel the service was short staffed.

Staff completed mandatory training, a structured induction and shadow shifts before working independently. One staff member said, “I have done over 60 trainings – medication, manual handling, safeguarding, health and safety. We also do shadow shifts before working alone.” Ongoing training and competency assessments covered key areas including medication, moving and handling, infection, prevention and control and the Mental Capacity Act.

The manager matched staff with people to improve compatibility and continuity. Staff felt supported by managers and confident to raise concerns. People and relatives spoke positively about staffing levels and continuity. One relative said, “Staffing levels seem good. Whichever carer comes in the morning tends then to come for the rest of the visits that day.” A person using the service told us, “There are no issues with staffing levels or their skills. They know what they are doing… A new carer will come with the two experienced carers so that they know what to do.”

The provider had effective systems to prevent and control infection. Staff were trained in infection prevention and control (IPC) and demonstrated good knowledge of hand hygiene, personal protective equipment (PPE) and safe disposal of waste and sharps. PPE was readily available, and staff were observed using it appropriately. IPC audits and spot checks were completed, and where poor practice was identified, prompt action was taken, including feedback and retraining. Staff understood how to manage people with infections and how to escalate concerns. These arrangements reduced the risk of infection and protected people and staff.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed, resulting in reduced risks of missed doses and medication errors. One relative explained that “the carers put mum’s tablets out for her to take and make sure that she has taken them. They collect the tablets from the chemist,” which helped ensure continuity of treatment and relieved the family of the burden of managing prescriptions. Medication risk assessments, care plans and Medication Administration Record (MAR) charts clearly guided staff on how to administer medicines, including patches and “as required” medicines, supporting consistent and confident practice.

As a result, people experienced fewer delays and greater reassurance that medicines were given correctly. Staff were trained in medication administration and understood the importance of recording refusals and omissions accurately, which helped identify patterns such as side effects or changing needs and enabled timely reviews by health professionals. Spot checks, audits and competency assessments were used to monitor practice and identify learning needs, leading to improvements where issues such as incomplete records were found. This contributed to safer outcomes for people and increased confidence among families that medicines were being managed effectively. Staff worked closely with GPs, pharmacies and other professionals, resulting in timely prescription updates and reduced disruptions to people’s care.