Vitale Care Chichester

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. At this inspection 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 reviewed safeguarding incidents, accidents and medication errors and took appropriate follow up action, including retraining and using disciplinary processes where needed. Safeguarding logs demonstrated managers shared learning, monitored people after incidents and made referrals promptly.

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.

Staff had clear guidance on moving and handling, catheter care and infection control. Transitions were well‑managed. For example, following a hospital admission, staff worked with families and reviewed risks at home to ensure the person was safe.

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.

Staff understood their responsibilities and could clearly describe different types of abuse. They told us they would contact the office immediately with any concerns. The service responded promptly to safeguarding issues, notifying the local authority and CQC where required. There was no one subject to community Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) safeguards.

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.

Plans reflected people’s preferences, communication needs and routines. For example, a person preferred information in short chunks and needed reassurance during emotional changes; another relied heavily on routines and specific meal textures. People and families told us they felt involved in decisions and their independence was respected. Risk management was dynamic; where people’s needs changed, staff updated plans. Relatives consistently said staff “go the extra mile” and “treat them with empathy,” and people said staff promoted their dignity and choice.

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

Care plans documented environmental risks, including pets, stair lifts, kitchen hazards, hot water sources and evacuation routes. Staff understood how to keep people safe in their homes and supported people to maintain a clean, tidy and hazard‑free environment.

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.

People told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of their calls. Rotas showed travel time was considered, with some gaps built in to support safe scheduling. Staff said their rotas were manageable and they felt supported. Leaders monitored capacity and aimed to maintain additional hours to cover sickness and emergencies. Recruitment files were complete and demonstrated robust checks. Staff spoke positively about training and competency checks. They told us they received regular support, supervisions and could always speak to managers.

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.

Staff followed infection prevention and control guidance, including the use of personal protective equipment [PPE] for personal care and catheter care. Care plans contained clear infection control instructions, particularly for higher‑risk tasks such as catheter management and wound care. Audits showed no infection‑related concerns, and families told us staff supported good hygiene and cleanliness. One person said the house was always left “clean and tidy.” Staff training records showed infection control training was consistently completed, and the provider maintained oversight of compliance.

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.

People received their medicines safely. Audits evidenced Medication Administration Records (MAR) charts consistently reflected people’s prescribed medicines. Medication errors were rare. Where issues did occur, such as incorrect blister pack use or digital gaps due to app syncing, managers took appropriate action, retrained staff and confirmed whether doses were administered. ‘As required’ PRN protocols were in place and they clearly described when they should be administered. There were no concerns about stock levels, and self‑administration was risk‑assessed. One relative said the service was “amazing” in managing medicines safely. Training records showed staff received medicine training and competency assessments.